DC-Education Working Group

Document Sample
DC-Education Working Group Powered By Docstoc
					DC-Education Working Group
The DC-Ed Application Profile

      Jon Mason, EdNA
      Stuart Sutton, GEM
          Co-Chairs
            New Mission of the DCMI

   The mission of the Dublin Core Metadata
    Initiative (DCMI) is to make it easier to find
    resources using the Internet through the
    following activities:
       Developing metadata standards for resource
        discovery across domains
       Defining frameworks for the interoperation of
        metadata sets
       Facilitating the development of community- or
        domain-specific metadata sets that work within these
        frameworks
                             Activities

   Face-to-Face Meetings:
       October 27-28, 1999 (Frankfurt)
            Scanned existing education metadata initiatives for common
             attributes
            Identified five categories of descriptive need
              • Statements about users of a resource (audience)
              • Statements about duration (“use” time) of a resource
              • Statements about teaching & learning processes &
                characteristics of a resource
              • Statements about process & content standards to which a
                resource conforms
              • Statements about quality assessments of a resource
             Activities (Continued)

   February 19-20, 2000 (Melbourne)
        Participants (DC community & IEEE 1484.12 community)
        Developed criteria for evaluation
        Reached consensus on four of the five areas of need
         (“users,” “standards,” “duration,” “quality”)
          • Not enough time for the others
              – Teaching/learning methods & processes
              – Refined audience facets (e.g., “level”)
              – Quality (best left to local applications)
          • All remaining on this coming year’s agenda …
        Vocabulary Issues
          • Resource Type
                  Activities (Continued)

   Moving the Proposal
       Proposal to Melbourne participants (March 1-7, 2000)
       Proposal DC-Education listserv (March 7-April 15,
        2000)
       Proposal to DC-General (April 15-April 30, 2000)
       Proposal to DC Executive Committee (April 30, 2000)
       Tomorrow—headed for the DC-Usage Committee …
            Decision Points: Do the aspects of the proposal meet the
             appropriate element/qualifier criteria
                 DC-Education Proposal
   Audience (element)
            Description: “A category of user for whom the resource is intended”
               • Mediator (element qualifier)
                    – Description: “An entity that mediates access to the resource”

   Standard (Alternative mechanisms)
       Alternative 1:
            standard (element)
            Description: “A reference to an established education or training
             standard to which the resource is associated”
               • identifier (element qualifier)
                    – Description: “An identifier (or notation) that serves to uniquely identify the
                      standard being associated”
               • version (element qualifier)
                    – Description: “Information identifying the version of the standard being
                      referenced”
            DC-Education Proposal

   Alternative 2:
        relation (element)
          • conformsTo (element qualifier)
              – Description: “A reference to an established education or training
                standard to which the resource is associated”
                 Context for Cooperation
   Past: August 1999
   Current: Resolution of 1st stage of an IEEE LOM MOU
       Cooperation & the acknowledging of namespaces
   Emerging: Harmonization of activities across two broad
    groups of initiatives in educational resources
       Gateways/resource discovery initiatives (primarily situated in the
        education community); e.g., EdNA (Australia) & GEM (US)
       Specification initiatives for comprehensive e-learning solutions
        (situated in private sector, government & higher education)
            Resource Packaging & Discovery; Agents (student, teachers, bus
             drivers); Events (sequencing of learning events, testing, grading, &
             passing of transcripts etc. among course management shells &
             enterprise systems)
            E.g., Ariadne (EU) & Instructional Management Systems (US)
            Deficient description of the teaching/learning facets of resources
                DC-Education Proposal

   IEEE 1484.12/Ariadne/IMS (LOM)
       Endorsement:
            typicalLearningTime (DC-Ed “duration”)
              • “Approximate or typical time it takes to work with this resource”
            interactivityType
              • “The flow of interaction between this resource and the intended
                user”
            interactivityLevel
              • “The degree of interactivity between the end user and this
                resource”
             DCMI Process Ramifications

   Operation and jurisdiction of the Usage
    Committee
       [Tentative] Tiered Model:
            ProposedConformingRecommendedObsolete
   Relationship between DC-Education Working
    Group proposals and other DC working groups:
       Resource Type
            DC1 (and future work of the Type Working Group)
       Relation
            Proposed Relation element qualifiers (“conformsTo”)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:5
posted:11/6/2012
language:Unknown
pages:11