Csun pse-006-presentation-2013 v2.1
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Csun pse-006-presentation-2013 v2.1

on

  • 144 views

Although some projects and most LMS still rely on IEEE LOM, this standard is not yet an option. We suggest some lessons to learn.

Although some projects and most LMS still rely on IEEE LOM, this standard is not yet an option. We suggest some lessons to learn.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
144
Views on SlideShare
144
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Csun pse-006-presentation-2013 v2.1 Csun pse-006-presentation-2013 v2.1 Presentation Transcript

  • IEEE LOM is not an option: lessons to learnMiquel Centelles, Mireia Ribera, Marina Salse Ensenyament – AssignaturaGrup Adaptabit: Working group on digital accessibilityfor teaching, research – 20xx Curs 20xx and teaching innovation Docent: Nom CognomsDepartament of Librarianship and Information ScienceUniversity of Barcelona
  • Summary Rationale Objectives Methodology Data analysis Discussion Further steps2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 2
  • Rationale: context of the research A project on creating accessible teaching resources within the University of Barcelona. We want to recommend teachers a metadata model covering accessibility aspects of resources and processes.2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 3
  • Rationale:why our (first) interest in IEEE LOM Adoption of SCORM: Many Learning Management Systems support SCORM, and SCORM uses IEEE LOM metadata. Adoption in LMS: LOM as a major development of eLearning systems (such as LMS) and is widely used in such systems, notably for example in Europe. Adoption of profiles: LOM has been widely profiled for particular domains. 28th Annual International Technology and 2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 4
  • Rationale:why our (first) interest in IEEE LOM2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 5
  • Rationale: known IEEE LOM drawbacks Its abstract model is not aligned with basic standards for semantic interoperability, such as Resource Description Framework (RDF). The adaptation of the standard to the web of data is suffering from delays in two key processes:  The IEEE LOM mapping to Dublin Core (DCMI) abstract model.  The elaboration and publication of an official RDF vocabulary.2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 6
  • Objectives of the research1. Identification of application profiles based on IEEE LOM.2. Descriptive review of IEEE LOM application profiles (AP).3. Descriptive review of AP implementation on Learning Resource Repositories (LRR).2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 7
  • Methodology: on application profilesApplication profiles gathering:  Literature search through key actors, European projects, and bibliographic databases.  Complement with questionnaires and interviews to AP holders.2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 8
  • Methodology: on application profiles Application profiles selection:  It must be based (mostly) on IEEE LOM, of course  It must be currently active  No restrictions on: • the practice community • the scope of application profiles (topics…) • the country of origin2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 9
  • Methodology: on application profiles Key data of findings:  32 different application profiles  3 have a world wide scope  11 are focused on Europe  4 are focused on USA  the remaining 17 are focused on different, specific countries2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 10
  • Methodology: on LRRs One LRR is selected for each IEEE LOM application profile:  It must offer openly accessible resources  It could belong to one unique institution, or to several  If several LRRs, selection based on: • University over lower studies • Broad content over specialized2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 11
  • Methodology: on LRRs 10 samples of metadata records are obtained from each LRR:  Search period: 29th August-8th October 2012.  Search strategy (descending order): • 1st Criteria: first learning resources published during 2012 • 2nd Criteria: learning resources of the type “Lecture” • 3rd Criteria: keyword “education”Finally, we got search results concerning 24 APs2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 12
  • Methodology:10 samples of records of each LRR 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 13
  • Data analysis: 2 different purposes APs versus base standard IEEE LOM Metadata records versus APs2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 14
  • Data analysis: different evidence levels Not all AP provides the same quantity and quality of evidences for the analysis.  All of them: documentation about schema and data values  Other evidences, depending on each AP: • Full evidence level: records in XML binding. • Medium evidence level: records in some human readable format (not XML). • Low evidence level: no metadata records (8 APs), mostly due to LRR out of order during the test period.2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 15
  • Data analysis: APs vs. base standard # of simple data elements in AP versus 58 total in the base Standard # of mandatory simple data elements in AP # of non allowed modifications within AP:2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 16
  • Data analysis: APs vs. base standard2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 17
  • Data analysis: APs vs. base standard Non allowed modifications: 1. Altering the relative location of an existing data element (e.g. moving a parent element to a child one) 2. Creating a new element that mimics the semantic intent of an existing element 3. Changing the meaning of an existing element 4. Changing the name of an element 5. Extending a schema other than at a specified extension point2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 18
  • Data analysis: APs vs. base standard Non allowed modifications (cont.): 6. Extending cardinality of an element 7. Adding new items in a controlled vocabulary list 8. Modifying the value space and data type of data elements from the base schema. 9. Defining data types or value spaces for aggregate data elements in the base schema2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 19
  • Number of simple data elements included in AP respect base schema120.00%100.00%80.00%60.00%40.00%20.00% 0.00% 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 20
  • Number of simple data elements included in AP respect base schema14 APs include less than the 58 elements inthe base standard (44%)12 APs include all the 58 data elements inthe base standard (37%)6 APs include more than the 58 elements inthe base standard (19%) 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 21
  • Number of mandatory simple data elements stated by AP353025201510 5 0 28th Annual International Technology and 2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 22
  • Number of mandatory simple data elements stated by AP25 APs state mandatory (simple) data elements(78%):  At top: Biosci Education Network (BEN) states 30 mandatory elements  At bottom: LOM-FR states 3 mandatory elements7 APs don’t state any mandatory (simple) dataelements (22%) 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 23
  • AP is conformant with base schema? 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 24
  • AP is conformant with base schema?4 APs are fully conformant with the base schema (12%)25 APs are not fully conformant with the base schema(78%) The less respected restriction: Adding new items in a controlled vocabulary list (18/25) The most respected restriction: Defining data types or value spaces for aggregate data elements in the base schema (2/25)In 3 cases, solid conclusions can not be made based onavailable sources (9%) 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 25
  • Data analysis: Metadata records versus APs Our questions are:  Metadata records respect mandatory conditions of simple data elements in the AP?  Metadata records in the LRR apply controlled vocabularies established by the AP?  Metadata records in the LRR respect requirement related to value spaces and data types in the AP?2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 26
  • LRR follows mandatory conditions? 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 27
  • LRR follows mandatory conditions?• Not applicable in 5 LRRs (21%)• Mandatory conditions are followed in 5 LRRs (21%)• Mandatory conditions are not followed in 11 LRRs (46%)• In 3 cases, solid conclusions can not be made based on available sources (12%) 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 28
  • LRR applies specified controlled vocabulary? 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 29
  • LRR applies specified controlled vocabularies?• Specified controlled vocabularies are applied in 19 LRRs (79%)• Specified controlled vocabularies are not applied in 1 LRR (4%)• In 4 cases, solid conclusions can not be made based on available sources (17%) 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 30
  • LRR apply data types and values restrictions? 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 31
  • LRR applies data types and values restrictions?• Data types and values restrictions are applied in 11 LRRs (46%)• Data types and values restrictions are not applied in 1 LRR (4%)• In 12 cases, solid conclusions can not be made based on available sources (50%) 28th Annual International Technology and2/27/2013 Persons with Disabilities Conference 32
  • Discussion: disappointing results Most AP are not conformant with IEEE LOM base standard. Implementation of AP on LRR don’t even follow the application profile conditions. Availability of interchange formats (XML, JSON... not to say RDF) for metadata records is not a broad practice.2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 33
  • Discussion: main conformance black holes Extension of controlled vocabularies with new words created adhoc. Modifications in value spaces and data types of data elements. Definition of data types or value spaces for aggregated data elements.2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 34
  • Discussion: lessons learned Keep them simple. Metadata is an “overhead” task which should be minimum and as automatic as possible. Force conformance through XML schemas, semantic web vocabularies or other applied constraints Set a standard for the display of records and their reusability.2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 35
  • Further steps: new standards in competition Based on those drawbacks, we have decided to move on new alternatives for metadata base schema:  ISO/IEC 19788 Metadata for learning resources (MLR) standard …or…  Learning Resources Metadata Initiative (LRMI), which uses microdata and is led by significant companies.2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 36
  • Further steps: we’ll keep monitoring Nevertheless, we’ll keep on completing the map of IEEE LOM based AP. In order to:  Monitoring the evolution and adaptation of IEEE LOM APs to the semantic web.  Monitoring the solutions which LRRs adopt to manage mentioned challenges.  Monitoring the evolution of IEEE LOM standard in relation with the raising of “new” learning resources metadata standards.2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 37
  • Further steps: collaborations? We ask you to give us information about IEEE LOM APs and LRR using them, answering the questionnarie for this purpose available at: Adaptabit http://bd.ub.edu/adaptabit/ We will offer you the publication of all the data about IEEE LOM APs as open data.2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 38
  • Thanks for your attention! Questions, Opinions, Suggestions… miquel.centelles@ub.edu2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 39