As we are developing sites for lifelong learners, do you have any views on whether we should use metadata appropriate for learning packages, e.g. the IMS Learning Resource Metadata Model or LOM (Learning Object Metadata)?
Although the IMS Learning Resource Metadata Model or IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) would be relevant, both these place a significant overhead on the metadata creator; a LOM record could take an hour or more to complete in extreme cases, for example. We feel that LOM/IMS is too big an overhead for what these projects are meant to be doing (although a LOM/IMS description of each project might be worht considering). An alternative might be to use Dublin Core with the extensions proposed by the Education Working Group (DCEd) of the DCMI. They have proposed an “Audience” element, and suggest adopting “InteractivityType”, “InteractivityLevel”, and “TypicalLearningTime” elements from the IEEE LOM standard. More information is available at: http://dublincore.org/news/pr-20001206.shtml More general information on educational metadata is available in the two recent SCHEMAS Metadata Watch reports: http://www.schemas-forum.org/metadata-watch/1.html#_T oc486154100 http://www.schemas-forum.org
Related Questions
- As we are developing sites for lifelong learners, do you have any views on whether we should use metadata appropriate for learning packages, e.g. the IMS Learning Resource Metadata Model or LOM (Learning Object Metadata)?
- How can the West Yorkshire Lifelong Learning Network help learners?
- What is Lifelong Learning What is Lifelong Learning?
