RDFa versus Microformats: Exploring the Potential for Semantic Interoperability of Mash-up Personal Learning Environments<...
A Course as dynamic process<br />Mash-up PLE have become a fast developing trend <br />Course is not just a syllabus, it a...
Which Metadata we need?<br /><ul><li>Course has:
Learning goals
Schedule of learning activities (assignments, discussions)
Registered participants (teachers, students)
Different types of resources
We usually can extract such information from LMS, but how it is possible in case of PLE?</li></li></ul><li>Formats for PLE...
Scenario<br />Teacher publishes a Course’s information by using a web application — blog, wiki, forum or personal web site...
Scenario: Data<br /><ul><li>The Course can contain:
(meta)data about the course syllabus,
pre-requisite and target competencies,
amount of credits,
dates for start and end of the course,
the criteria and form of a final assessment,
contact information of teachers and other participants</li></li></ul><li>Scenario: Features<br />Teacher can constantly up...
Microformats<br />HTML code:<br />&lt;a href = &quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/&quot; rel=&quot;license&q...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

RDFa Versus Microformats

671 views

Published on

Presentation at MUPPLE workshop, September 2009, Nice, France

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
671
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

RDFa Versus Microformats

  1. 1. RDFa versus Microformats: Exploring the Potential for Semantic Interoperability of Mash-up Personal Learning Environments<br />Vladimir Tomberg, Mart Laanpere<br /> <br />Tallinn University, Narva mnt. 25, 10120 Tallinn, Estonia<br />vtomberg@tlu.ee, mart.laanpere@tlu.ee<br />
  2. 2. A Course as dynamic process<br />Mash-up PLE have become a fast developing trend <br />Course is not just a syllabus, it also involves various dynamic processes<br />These processes can be described by way of metadata using<br />
  3. 3. Which Metadata we need?<br /><ul><li>Course has:
  4. 4. Learning goals
  5. 5. Schedule of learning activities (assignments, discussions)
  6. 6. Registered participants (teachers, students)
  7. 7. Different types of resources
  8. 8. We usually can extract such information from LMS, but how it is possible in case of PLE?</li></li></ul><li>Formats for PLE metadata<br />(X)HTML is a main format for PLE<br />(X)HTML syntaxes are not designed for carrying the semantic data<br />Different technologies were introduced in the past<br />Microformats and RDFa are two most widespread<br />
  9. 9. Scenario<br />Teacher publishes a Course’s information by using a web application — blog, wiki, forum or personal web site<br />Information by means of mash-ups is delivered to learners<br />
  10. 10. Scenario: Data<br /><ul><li>The Course can contain:
  11. 11. (meta)data about the course syllabus,
  12. 12. pre-requisite and target competencies,
  13. 13. amount of credits,
  14. 14. dates for start and end of the course,
  15. 15. the criteria and form of a final assessment,
  16. 16. contact information of teachers and other participants</li></li></ul><li>Scenario: Features<br />Teacher can constantly update the course information during time<br />Teacher assigns lectures, announces an assessment and evaluates learners <br />Learners thus constantly have the fresh information on everything that happens on a course<br />
  17. 17. Microformats<br />HTML code:<br />&lt;a href = &quot;http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0/&quot; rel=&quot;license&quot;&gt;cc by 2.0&lt;/a&gt;<br />In browser:<br />cc by 2.0<br />
  18. 18. Microformats<br />Standard (X)HTML attributes &apos;class&apos;, &apos;rel&apos; and &apos;rev&apos; are used for metadata storing purpose<br />Not standardized, but well specified and widely known<br />Endless development<br />Have no ontologies, formal descriptions or schemes<br />
  19. 19. RDFa<br />HTML code:<br />&lt;a rel=&quot;cc:license&quot; href=&quot;http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/&quot;&gt; Creative Commons License &lt;/a&gt;<br />In browser:<br />Creative Commons License <br />
  20. 20. RDFa<br /><ul><li>Standardized by W3C
  21. 21. Uses 10 reserved tags, 5 of them from XHTML2
  22. 22. Can be applied for RDFa only to XHTML2, not for HTML, XHTML1
  23. 23. Mixing different namespaces in one document is possible, for example 'dc:' and 'cc:' simultaneously
  24. 24. Hard to suppose prospect because of end of XHTML 2 support from W3C</li></li></ul><li>Technological Comparison<br />
  25. 25. Semantic Comparison<br />
  26. 26. Application for educational needs<br />
  27. 27. Implementation on Wordpress<br />Vladimir Tomberg, Mart Laanpere<br />Towards Lightweight LMS 2.0: A Blog-based Approach to Online Assessment, <br />EC-TEL 2008 Maastricht, The Netherlands<br />
  28. 28. Under development at present<br />
  29. 29. Conclusion<br /><ul><li>Which technology is more suitable?
  30. 30. Microformats
  31. 31. Good simplicity of adaptation to web;
  32. 32. Limited vocabulary for educational needs;
  33. 33. RDFa
  34. 34. More flexible and semantically rich;
  35. 35. Unclear prospect because XHTML2 developing is stopped</li>

×