View
220
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
LOM Survey: Final Report
Dr. Norm Friesen
Dublin, Sept. 12, 2004
Survey History
• Paris, 03/2003: “It is important that SC36/WG4 understand the state of current practices and use of the LOM standard and other metadata for learning resources.”
• Korea, 09/2003: Preliminary findings provided –focus on application profiles & random, manually-inspected sets
• Final report: statistical analysis on “actual” element use & values assigned
Preliminary Survey findings
• A small number of the potential LOM elements are used (1/2-2/3); few potential iterations used
• Many of the elements used are in the Dublin Core Element Set
• Use of Educational elements is not necessarily high
• LOM structures & elements for 9:Classification are utilized very effectively and precisely.
• Problems with vCard
Sample sets used in Study
Sets of records varying in size from 75 to over 3000; 50 randomly selected from each (n=250); Special thanks to all participants:
• ARIADNE Project (EU)
• the LTSN (UK)
• Metalab (France)
• CELTS (China)
• CAREO (Canada)
Analysis Issues
• Native XML database required to aggregate & query LOM instances:– The record sets varied in terms of the precise
datamodel and bindings upon which they were based.
– Abstracting data from XML representations for use in other manipulation technologies (e.g. relational databases) is "unwieldy"
– Invalid vCard constructions: Existing LOM examples are erroneous; instances could not be parsed using existing vCard processors.
Analysis Method
• As in other LOM surveys, (e.g. Najjar, Ternier, Duval, 2003), improvised aggregation and analysis techniques were used
• String matches on individual lines of LOM records, retrieving previous or subsequent lines of XML.
• These aggregation & query problems, and the need to improvise is the 1st survey finding, and perhaps its most important.
Data Portability
• Data portability and reuse: the raison d'être of the LOM!
• conventional and low cost technologies cannot easily be used to realize LOM data portability and reuse
• not at all a positive indicator for increased sharing and reuse between implementa-tions and across jurisdictions
Two types of Findings
1. What elements are used?
2. What are the values assigned to these elements (especially important because values can determine the application of subordinate elements)
Frequency of Element Use
0102030405060708090100
6.3:
Des
crip
tion
5.5:
Inte
nded
:End
:Use
r:R
o
9.2.
2.1:
Id
4.2:
Siz
e
5.1:
Inte
ract
ivity
:Typ
e
6.2:
Cop
yrig
ht:a
nd:O
ther
:
3.3:
Met
adat
a:S
chem
a
6:R
ight
s
1.5:
Key
wor
d
3.4:
Lang
uage
2.3.
3:D
ate
3.2:
Con
trib
ute
3.2.
1:R
ole
3.2.
2:E
ntity
3:M
eta-
met
adat
a
2.3.
2:E
ntity
4:T
echn
ical
4.3:
Loca
tion
2.3:
Con
trib
ute
9:C
lass
ifica
tion
9.2.
2.2:
Ent
ry
1.4:
Des
crip
tion
1.1:
Iden
tifie
r
1.1.
1:C
atal
og
1.1.
2:E
ntry
9.2:
Tax
on:P
ath
9.2.
1:S
ourc
e
9.2.
2.:T
axon
5.2:
Lear
ning
:Res
ourc
e:T
2.3.
1:R
ole
5:E
duca
tiona
l
2:Li
fe:C
ycle
1.3:
Lang
uage
4.1:
For
mat
1.2:
Titl
e
9.1:
Pur
pose
Frequency of Element Use
The most frequently used elements (not container elements; %-tage):
• ClassificationPurpose, • General.Title• Technical.Format • (object & metadata record) Language• Lifecycle.Contribute.Role• Learning Resource Type
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
GeneralIdentif ierCatalog
EntryTitle
LanguageDescription
Keyw ordCoverageStructure
Aggregation LevelAggregation Level
Life CycleVersion
StatusContribute
RoleEntityDate
Meta-metadataIdentif ierCatalog
EntryContribute
RoleEntityDate
Metadata SchemaLanguageTechnical
FormatSize
LocationRequirementOrComposite
TypeName
Minimum VersionMaximum Version
Installation RemarksOther Platform Requirements
DurationEducational
Interactivity TypeLearning Resource Type
Interactivity LevelSemantic Density
Intended End User RoleContext
Typical Age RangeDiff iculty
Typical Learning TimeDescriptionLanguage
RightsCost
Copyright and Other RestrictionsDescription
RelationKind
ResourceIdentif ierCatalog
EntryDescriptionAnnotation
EntityDate
DescriptionClassif ication
PurposeTaxon Path
SourceTaxon
IdEntry
DescriptionKeyw ord
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
GeneralIdentif ierCatalog
EntryTitle
LanguageDescription
Keyw ordCoverageStructure
Aggregation LevelAggregation Level
Life CycleVersion
StatusContribute
RoleEntityDate
Meta-metadataIdentif ierCatalog
EntryContribute
RoleEntityDate
Metadata SchemaLanguageTechnical
FormatSize
LocationRequirementOrComposite
TypeName
Minimum VersionMaximum Version
Installation RemarksOther Platform Requirements
DurationEducational
Interactivity TypeLearning Resource Type
Interactivity LevelSemantic Density
Intended End User RoleContext
Typical Age RangeDiff iculty
Typical Learning TimeDescriptionLanguage
RightsCost
Copyright and Other RestrictionsDescription
RelationKind
ResourceIdentif ierCatalog
EntryDescriptionAnnotation
EntityDate
DescriptionClassif ication
PurposeTaxon Path
SourceTaxon
IdEntry
DescriptionKeyw ord
Least Frequently Used Elements
0
5
10
15
20
25
1.6
Covera
ge
4.4
.1.3
Min
imum
Vers
ion
4.4
.1.4
Maxim
um
Vers
ion
5.4
Sem
antic
Density
7.2
.2 D
escriptio
n
8 A
nnota
tion
8.1
Entit
y
8.2
Date
8.3
Descriptio
n
9.3
Descriptio
n
5.1
1 L
anguage
4.7
Dura
tion
7.2
.1.2
Entr
y
5.8
Diff
iculty
1.7
Str
uctu
re
2.2
Sta
tus
2.1
Vers
ion
4.5
Insta
llatio
n R
em
ark
s
5.3
Inte
ractiv
ity L
evel
5.1
Descriptio
n
5.6
Conte
xt
Most and Least Used Elements
• Most (= or > 80%):– General: Identifier, Title, Description, Keyword– Authorship, other contributions– Technical & Educational Format/Type– Classification (Purpose=Discipline)
• Least (< 20% & > 0%):– Duration, Difficulty, Structure, Granularity &
Version
% Use by Category: General
0102030405060708090
100
1Gen
eral
1.1I
dent
ifier
1.1.
1Cat
alog
1.1.
2Ent
ry
1.2T
itle
1.3L
angu
age
1.4D
escr
iptio
n
1.5K
eyw
ord
1.6C
over
age
1.7S
truc
ture
1.8A
ggre
gatio
nLe
vel
% Use by Category: LifeCycle
0102030405060708090
100
2:Li
fe C
ycle
2.1:
Ver
sion
2.2:
Sta
tus
2.3:
Con
trib
ute
2.3.
1:R
ole
2.3.
2:E
ntity
2.3.
3:D
ate
% Use by Category: Technical
0102030405060708090
100
4:T
echn
ical
4.1:
For
mat
4.2:
Siz
e
4.3:
Loca
tion
4.4:
Req
uire
men
t
4.4.
1:O
rCom
posi
te
4.4.
1.1:
Typ
e
4.4.
1.2:
Nam
e
4.4.
1.3:
Min
imum
Ver
sion
4.4.
1.4:
Max
imum
Ver
sion
4.5:
Inst
alla
tion
Rem
arks
4.6:
Oth
er P
latf
orm
Req
uire
men
ts
4.7:
Dur
atio
n
% Use by Category: Educational
0102030405060708090
100
5:E
duca
tiona
l
5.1:
Inte
ract
ivity
Typ
e5.
2:Le
arni
ngR
esou
rce
Typ
e
5.3:
Inte
ract
ivity
Leve
l
5.4:
Sem
antic
Den
sity
5.5:
Inte
nded
End
Use
r R
ole
5.6:
Con
text
5.7:
Typ
ical
Age
Ran
ge
5.8:
Diff
icul
ty
5.9:
Typ
ical
Lear
ning
Tim
e
5.1:
Des
crip
tion
5.11
:Lan
guag
e
% Use by Category: Classification
0102030405060708090
100
9:C
lass
ifica
tion
9.1:
Pur
pose
9.2:
Tax
on P
ath
9.2.
1:S
ourc
e
9.2.
2.:T
axon
9.2.
2.1:
Id
9.2.
2.2:
Ent
ry
9.3:
Des
crip
tion
Key
wor
d
Values Assigned to Elements: Title
– Almost 1/3 of the records specifically examined showed signs of using a single title field to accommodate multiple title components.
– These titles included punctuation separating these components, and/or included incremented numeric values to differentiate between otherwise identical title values
LifeCycle.Contribute.Role
020406080
100120140160180
Aut
hor
Pub
lishe
r
Val
idat
or
unkn
own
initi
ator
term
inat
or
valid
ator
edito
r
grap
hica
lde
sign
erte
chni
cal
impl
emen
ter
cont
ent
prov
ider
tech
nica
lva
lidat
ored
ucat
iona
lva
lidat
or
scrip
t w
riter
inst
ruct
iona
lde
sign
ersu
bjec
tm
atte
r
vCard Fields in Contribute.Entity
0
50
100
150
200
250
FN
OR
G
EM
AIL
BD
AY
TE
L
TE
L.x
EM
AIL
.Typ
e
MA
ILE
R
TIT
LE
RO
LE
LOG
O
KE
Y
KE
Y.T
ype.
x
X-x
Technical.Format
0
20
40
60
80
100
120T
ext/
htm
l
Applic
ation/p
df
Applic
ation/java*
Image/jpeg
Image/g
if
Vid
eo*
Applic
ation/m
spow
erp
oin
t
*
Applic
ation/m
sw
ord
Shockw
ave-f
lash*
Educational.LearningResourceType
05
1015202530354045
*Hypert
ext/w
ebpage
Text
…P
resenta
tion
note
s
Narr
ativ
e text
*Exerc
ise
Exposé
Glo
ssary
Slid
e/s
lides
Vid
eo
Experience
Com
pute
r-based
Tuto
rial
Classification.Purpose
020406080
100120140160180200
*Dis
cip
line
Ed.
Level
Idea
Module
Pre
req.
Activity
CC
D
Conclusions: Portability & vCard
• LOM structures make data portability difficult to realize using conventional and low cost technologies.
• Any advantage that the inclusion of vCard presents is far outweighed by the difficulties of its implementation, and the under-utilization of vCard fields in actual LOM instances.
Conclusions: Elements and Values Selected Frequently
• LOM IS used to describe intellectual content of resources:– General: Identifier, Title, Description, Keyword– LifeCycle.Contribute (role = Author and
publisher)– Classification (Purpose=Discipline)
• LOM IS used to describe file and media characteristics– Technical.Format, Technical.Size, Location– Educational.Learning Resource Type (text,
hypertext, notes, etc.)
Conclusions: Elements and Values Seldom Selected
• LOM use does not emphasize description of an educational context or level:– Educational.Semantic Density 0%– Educational.Context <20%– EndUserRole 40%
• LOM NOT used to describe resources in terms of software objects:– Structure, Version (i.e. Alpha, Beta), Status <18% – Aggregation level <27%– Contribute.Role="terminator" “technical
implementer/validator“ 0%
Conclusion: Premise for Study
• Careful examination of the ways in which the LOM is currently being implemented is of great value for future standardization work, and serves an important basis for defining future metadata requirements and approaches.
Duval & Hodgins, 2004:
we believe that…many of the current [LOM implementation] developments and efforts are somewhat misguided: …many of these efforts are perfecting the irrelevant, as they focus on the literal use of metadata, thus seeking to continue historical and current practices, rather than trying to design, experiment with and implement more innovative and effective ones.
Conclusion
…far from being "misguided" and "irrelevant," past and current
implementations represent the only source of verifiable, empirically-based data directly
related to the details of practice and requirements.