• Like
Chicago LOMRDF update 2003-06-19
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

Chicago LOMRDF update 2003-06-19

  • 596 views
Published

 

Published in Technology , Education
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
596
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. The LOM RDF binding - update 2003-06-19
      • Mikael Nilsson
      • [email_address]
      • The Knowledge Management Research Group
      • Centre for user oriented IT design
      • Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm
      • http://kmr.nada.kth.se
  • 2. Overview
    • Use cases of LOM/RDF
    • XML binding compatibility issues
    • Status of the binding
    • Summary
  • 3. Use cases 1: UR (Swedish educational broadcasting company)
    • Largest content producer in Sweden (state owned)
    • ~3000 TV/Radio programs since 2001 (30,000 since 1970), plus books, web sites, etc.
    • +50 every week
    • Online archive of digital versions since February:
    • http://www.ur.se (in Swedish...)
  • 4. UR: Web
  • 5. UR: Metadata
    • 4 application profiles (program, series, texts, websites)
    • Several vocabularies:
      • DC (title, description, subject, relation, etc.)
      • DC Qualifiers (medium, MIME type, W3CDTF...)
      • LOM (difficulty, location, annotation, requirements..)
      • UR specific (accessibility, licenses, participants)
      • IMS content packaging
  • 6. UR: Metadata refinements
    • Refinements for e.g.:
      • identifiers (4-5 types in use in parallel at UR)
      • annotations (internal and external)
      • descriptions (different kinds for different purposes)
      • language (spoken/subtitles)
    • Vocabularies for
      • audiences, types, media carriers, including refinements of DC & LOM vocabulary.
  • 7. UR features
    • Easily modifiable metadata set , and easily configurable editor. Without disturbing, we can:
      • add fields
      • refine fields and values
      • add vocabularies
    • Supports cross-search with DC/DCQ repositories. Demonstrated yesterday at UR:
      • UR, OAI, Swed. Agency of Education, digital portfolios
  • 8. Use case 2: Edutella
    • P2P network for metadata exchange
      • http://edutella.jxta.org
    • Supports any RDF metadata
    • Scenarios:
      • Search for nuclear physics material ( DC, DCQ )
      • Search for learning material for primary school on nuclear physics ( LOM )
      • Search for courses including a certain piece of content ( IMS CP )
      • Search for annotations/opinions on this course.
  • 9. Use case 3: RSS feeds
    • Rich Site Summary 1.0 based on RDF and DC
      • http://purl.org/rss/1.0/
    • Stephen Downes' RSS/LOM module :
      • http://www.downes.ca/xml/RSS_LOM.htm
      • “ The RSS-LOM Module provides translation from IEEE-LOM to RSS 1.0 to allow learning object repositories to syndicate listings and descriptions of learning objects.”
      • “ An RSS feed provided by a learning object repository is harvested by a metadata repository and aggregated with feeds from other learning object repositories.”
      • “ These aggregated feeds are then made available as a searchable resource, the links provided ultimately pointing to the learning objects provided by the original learning object repositories.”
  • 10. RSS/LOM example (extract)
    • <dc:identifier>0-226-10389-7</dc:identifier>
    • <dc:title>Sample Learning Object</dc:title>
    • <dc:language>en</dc:language>
    • <dc:description>A sample learning object metadata file in RSS<dc:description>
    • <dc:subject>psychology</dc:subject>
    • <dc:coverage>1776-07-04</dc:coverage>
    • <lom-gen:structure>Atomic</lom-gen:structure>
    • <lom-gen:aggregationLevel>13</lom-aggregationLevel>
    • <lom-life:version>beta</lom-lifecycle:version>
    • <lom-life:status>final</lom-lifecycle:status>
    • <dc:publisher>National Research Council</dc:publisher>
    • <dc:editor>Rod Savoie</dc:editor>
    • <dc:creator>Stephen Downes</dc:creator>
    • <lom-meta:metadataScheme rdf:resource=&quot;&lom-meta;LOMv1.0&quot;/>
    • <dc:format>text/html</dc:format>
    • <lom-tech:operatingSystem>Multi-OS<lom-tech:operatingSystem>
    • <lom-tech:browser>NetscapeCommunicator 4.7</lom-tech:browser>
    • <dcterms:extent>PT1H20M</dcterms:extent>
    • <lom-edu:interactivityType>Active</lom-edu:interactivityType>
    • <lom-edu:type>Exercise<lom-edu:type>
    • <lom-edu:interactivityLevel>Low</interactivityLevel>
    • <lom-edu:semanticDensity>High</lom-edu:semanticDensity>
    • <lom-edu:intendedEndUserRole>Manager</lom-edu:intendedEndUserRole>
    • <lom-edu:context>School</lom-edu:context>
    • <dcterms:audience>7-12</dcterms:audience>
    • <lom-edu:difficulty>Easy</lom-edu:difficulty>
    • <lom-edu:typicalLearningTime>PT1H20M</lom-edu:typicalLearningTime>
    • <lom-edu:description>This is intended to...</lom-edu:description>
    • <lom-edu:language>en</lom-edu:language>
    • <lom-rights:cost>SomeCost</lom-rights:cost>
    • <lom-rights:copyrightAndOtherRestrictions>SomeRestriction</lom-rights:copyrightAndOtherRestrictions>
    • <dc:rights>RightsBroker:RightsModel</dc:rights>
  • 11. RDF <=> XML issues (for the BRG)
    • Metadata term URIs
      • LOM/XML has them, LOM/RDF has them
      • How to sync LOM/XML – LOM/RDF wrt CORES?
    • Vocabulary term URIs
      • Ability to give URI for a term. Needed in RDF
      • For LOM vocab: URIs for LOM vocabulary values
      • For local vocab: vocabulary XML format?
    • LOM extensions are format specific
      • Need to make this clear in the LOM/XML spec
  • 12. RDF binding status
    • Most details resolved in the direction of simplification
    • Ballot-ready in principle
      • Binding is not perfect, but given the contraints we have, it's as good as it gets
    • Goal: “Yes, you can use RDF and be LOM-compatible. Here's how to do it:”
    • This goal is achievable with the current binding
    • See http://kmr.nada.kth.se/el/ims/md-lomrdf.html
  • 13. Future
    • Next-generation LOM visions:
      • allows for semantic extensions
      • plays nicer with other vocabularies
      • fits better into RDF world
      • in short: better knowledge representation capabilities
    • The RDF binding work shows many of the problems and possibilities
      • will help inform LOM 2.0.
  • 14. Issues for LOM 2.0
    • The issue of semantic (not structural) extension :
      • Subclasses, Subproperties, Element encodings
    • This needs a meta-model for metadata .
      • DC has one: “element”, “element refinement”, “element encoding”).
      • LOM has one: “element” “sub-element”, etc
    • RDF is a meta-model. DC is compatible, LOM is not. LOM's metamodel is insufficient for dealing with semantic extension
    • As LOM is structured, not flat: Needs conceptual modeling more than DC. What are objects, what are relations?