Metadata: What Why What standards should we use

1
Metadata What? Why?What standards should we
use?

• From Dublin Core to CanCore

From Napster to Learnster
Rory McGreal Athabasca University
Canadian Learning Object Repository Stakeholders
Forum Toronto, March 24, 2003
2
How did standards develop?
3
WHY METADATA?
about MEANING
Its needed for implementation of the semantic web
4
What is the semantic web?
Needs METADATA

• makes the web more understandable by computer
  programs
• deals with hierarchical relationships between
  meanings,
• reveals similarities/differences in meaning
• provides logical rules for making inferences

5
Why the semantic web?

• The WWW is semantic for humans NOT for machines
• We need machines to help us deal with the vast
  stores of information

6
Learning Object Example

• Pedagogical purpose to augment learning about
• Paris
• 1839
• Urban environments
• Architecture
• Daguerre
• Photography
• Daguerreotypes

• Content

From Norm Friesen
Granularity an object can be a course, unit,
lesson, image, Web page, exercise, multimedia
clip, etc. but it must have a specified
pedagogical purpose/context
7
Learning objects
Programme
Module
Lesson
Component
Course
8
Why learning objects?
From custom-made to Mass production
to Mass-customization

9
Why learning objects?

FROM TO
One size fits all Tailored Generic
Focused Just-in-case Just-in-time
10
Learning Objects - Reality

• Still new technology largely untested
• Still poorly conceived
• No agreement in literature on definition
• No broader theoretical underpinnings
• Disjointed implementations
• Commercial development occurring in isolation
• No working interoperable repositories
• No broad acceptability

11
Who inputs METADATA?

• Two Camps
• Internal referenced - Users input their own
  metadata
• External referenced Professionals input
  metadata

• number of electronic objects is growing rapidly
• metadata required is too much for third-party
  indexers

12
METADATA characteristics

• a data dictionary of commonly defined elements
• a method for manipulating and communicating
  elements electronically
• rules for identifying and extracting content
• an official standards body
• tools for creating, transmitting, and storing.
• Ahronheim (1998)

13
METADATA conditions

• Mandatory fields (small subset)
• Optional fields
• Extensible
• International interoperability
• Adapted from Griffin and Wason (1997)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
14
METADATA challenges
Too much concern with FIELDS NOT enough with
TERMS

• Fields need a common terminology
• Described by a content expert BUT
• TERMS must fit into a universe of knowledge
• AND
• Not be only useful to content experts
• Cross-searching requires compatible
  vocabularies

15
METADATA challenges

• Fields need a common terminology
• Described by a content expert BUT
• TERMS must fit into a universe of knowledge
• AND
• Not be only useful to content experts
• Cross-searching requires compatible
  vocabularies

16
METADATA challenges

• use as many descriptors as needed to enable
  identification
• BUT
• not too many descriptors making objects
  difficult to retrieve

17
What is XML? (eXtensible Markup Language)
HTML only displays data STYLE (font color,
image size) XML displays AND DESCRIBES
data (itemprice, saleoffer)
STYLE CONTENT XHTML (HTML version 4.0) XML
implementation of HTML
18
What is RDF? (Resource Description Framework)

• Uses a refined XML vocabulary
• Consists of nodes with attached pairs
• Nesting is used

RDF Author name R. McGreal
email rory_at_telecampus.edu phone
506444-4230
http//www.w3.org/TR/REC-rdf-syntax/
19
Metadata and XML
XML syntax
20
Metadata and RDF/XML
XML syntax
RDF structure
Metadata semantics
21
METADATA standards

• Dublin Core
• IEEE LTSC LOM
• IEEE LOM IMS metadata

22
METADATA Application profiles

• ADL SCORM
• ARIADNE
• SingCore
• UK Curriculum online
• Australian Learning Federation
• and others

23
Canadian Core Fields and Vocabulary

• More than an application profile
• For implementation record creation
• an interpretation simplification of ALL 76
  elements of the IEEE LOM
• FULL compatibility with IMS LOM

http//www.cancore.ca
24
CanCore
Complexity decreases
IMS Metadata Information Model appx. 80
elements, little interpre-tation
Implementation CanCore - CAREO
Specificity and Interoperability increases
25
Standards CAN be implemented with different
vocabularies

BUT SHOULD they?
http//www.cancore.ca
26
Standards specifications

• Standard (IEEE/ISO)
• Application Profile (SingCore, SCORM)
• More than an application profile (CanCore)

27
International Metadata Standard for Learning
Objects
IEEE LOM P1484.12/IMS
ARIADNE/SCORM
Dublin Core
Expressed through gt XML/SGML
28
Metadata implementation
IEEE LOM
CanCore
Application Profile/Implementation
Interoperable records
29
METADATA standards agreement
December 6, 2000
"Ready access to comprehensive repositories of
metadata is the critical factor at the inflection
point of the next generation of learning and
knowledge creation. However, this will require
that metadata be highly interoperable and
reusable worldwide. This agreement marks a major
step toward realizing this vision." -- Wayne
Hodgins, Chair of the IEEE LTSC LOM Working
Group
30
METADATA Initiatives

• AICC
• ALIC (Japan)
• CEN
• Cisco RLO
• MARC 21 (MARBI OAI)
• Msoft LRN
• Z39.5
• EML

31
OAI OKI
Open Archives Initiative Open Knowledge
Initiative

• develops and promotes interoperability standards
  that aim to facilitate the efficient
  dissemination of content as a means of increasing
  the availability of scholarly communication
• Digital Library Federation and the Coalition for
  Networked Information

http//www.openarchives.org/ http//www.oki.com/
32
SIF
Schools Interoperability Framework

• an industry-supported technical blueprint for
  K-12 software
• enables diverse applications to interact and
  share data seamlessly
• develops promotes interoperability standards
• facilitates the efficient dissemination of
  content
• increases availability of scholarly communication

http//www.sifinfo.org/
33
US Alliance

OKI, IMS, ADL and SIF
34
Learning Object Repositories

• CAREO
• GEM
• JA-SIG
• MERLOT

TeleCampus
35
(No Transcript)
36
GEM
Gateway to Educational Materials

• The Gateway, a an example repository or catalog
• set of metadata standards and technical
  mechanisms
• "one-stop, any-stop" access to uncatalogued
  educational materials
• consortium of 200 orgs. individuals
• a project of the U.S. Dept. of Education, ERIC

http//www.geminfo.org/
http//www.thegateway.org/
37
JA-SIG
Java in Administration Special Interest Group

• like Merlot a collection interactive online
  learning materials
• an example of a learning object repository
• does not adhere to universal metadata standards

http//www.mis2.udel.edu/ja-sig/
38
Merlot
Multimedia Educational Resource for Learning and
Online Teaching California State University
systems Distributed Learning and Teaching
Initiative Multimedia Repository Initiative

• a collection of high quality interactive online
  learning materials people
• an example of a learning object repository
• does not adhere to universal metadata standards

http//www.merlot.org
39
TeleCampus
Online Course Directory

• A metadata repository
• Conforms to international metadata standards.
• Houses only the metadata
• Does NOT house actual lessons, modules, or
  courses
• Links to the institutions that own the courses

• 65 000 online courses
• 36 countries, 12 languages
• 4 500 free courses

http//telecampus.edu
40
Edutella
Wallenberg Global Learning Network
Cf. GNUtella

• Uppsala, Sweden Lower Saxony, Germany
• a peer-to-peer exchange network for metadata
• RDF combined in an open source, peer-to-peer
  metadata architecture

http//edutella.jxta.org/servlets/ProjectHome
41
EML
Open University of Netherlands
(Cf. XML)
Educational Modeling Language

• codifies units of study (e.g. courses,lessons
  programmes) cf. learning objects
• Describes roles, relations, interactions
  activities
• XML extension for education implementations
• Supports IMS, SCORM, more comprehensive

http//eml.ou.nl/introduction/index.htm
CISCO Partnership
42
PALO Spanish EML

• 5 levels of formalized description of learning
  activity
• Content level text, simulation etc.
• Activity and cooperation level activities,
  resources etc.
• Structure prereqs, delivery format
• Sequencing and sequencing deadlines, timing
  etc.
• Management repositories, metadata etc.
• Defined by DTD and expressed in XML
• See http//sensei.lsi.uned.es/palo/

Terry Anderson
43
POOL SPLASH
Portal for Objects Oriented to Learning

• A customizable, intelligent, learning content
  management system
• A learning object repository

44
Kurzweil's Law
45
Kurzweil's Law of Accelerating Returns
46
19 700 Elvis sites
47
(No Transcript)