Ensenyament – Assignatura
Curs 20xx – 20xx
Docent: Nom Cognoms
IEEE LOM is not an option: lessons to learn
Miquel Centelles, Mireia Ribera, Marina Salse
Grup Adaptabit: Working group on digital accessibility for teaching, research and teaching innovation
Departament of Librarianship and Information Science
University of Barcelona
2/27/2013
Rationale Objectives Methodology Data analysis Discussion Further steps
Summary
228th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
A project on creating accessible teaching resources within the University of Barcelona.
We want to recommend teachers a metadata model covering accessibility aspects of resources and processes.
Rationale: context of the research
328th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
Rationale: why our (first) interest in IEEE LOM
Adoption of SCORM: Many Learning Management Systems support SCORM, and SCORM uses IEEE LOM metadata.
Adoption in LMS: LOM as a major development of eLearning systems (such as LMS) and is widely used in such systems, notably for example in Europe.
Adoption of profiles: LOM has been widely profiled for particular domains.
2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 4
Rationale: why our (first) interest in IEEE LOM
2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 5
Element 9.1 Classification. Purpose admits value “accessibility restrictions”
2/27/2013
Its abstract model is not aligned with basic standards for semantic interoperability, such as Resource Description Framework (RDF).
The adaptation of the standard to the web of data is suffering from delays in two key processes: The IEEE LOM mapping to Dublin Core (DCMI) abstract
model. The elaboration and publication of an official RDF
vocabulary.
Rationale: known IEEE LOM drawbacks
628th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
1. Identification of application profiles based on IEEE LOM.
2. Descriptive review of IEEE LOM application profiles (AP).
3. Descriptive review of AP implementation on Learning Resource Repositories (LRR).
Objectivesof the research
728th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
Application profiles gathering: Literature search through key actors,
European projects, and bibliographic databases.
Complement with questionnaires and interviews to AP holders.
Methodology: on application profiles
828th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
Application profiles selection: It must be based (mostly) on IEEE LOM, of
course It must be currently active No restrictions on:
• the practice community• the scope of application profiles (topics…)• the country of origin
Methodology: on application profiles
928th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
Key data of findings: 32 different application profiles 3 have a world wide scope 11 are focused on Europe 4 are focused on USA the remaining 17 are focused on different,
specific countries
Methodology: on application profiles
1028th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
One LRR is selected for each IEEE LOM application profile: It must offer openly accessible resources It could belong to one unique institution, or to
several If several LRRs, selection based on:
• University over lower studies• Broad content over specialized
Methodology: on LRRs
1128th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
10 samples of metadata records are obtained from each LRR: Search period: 29th August-8th October 2012. Search strategy (descending order):
• 1st Criteria: first learning resources published during 2012• 2nd Criteria: learning resources of the type “Lecture”• 3rd Criteria: keyword “education”
Finally, we got search results concerning 24 APs
Methodology: on LRRs
1228th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
Methodology: 10 samples of records of each LRR
2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 13
2/27/2013
APs versus base standard IEEE LOM
Metadata records versus APs
Data analysis: 2 different purposes
1428th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
Not all AP provides the same quantity and quality of evidences for the analysis. All of them: documentation about schema and data values Other evidences, depending on each AP:
• Full evidence level: records in XML binding.• Medium evidence level: records in some human readable format
(not XML).• Low evidence level: no metadata records (8 APs), mostly due to
LRR out of order during the test period.
Data analysis: different evidence levels
1528th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
# of simple data elements in AP versus 58 total in the base Standard
# of mandatory simple data elements in AP
# of non allowed modifications within AP:
Data analysis: APs vs. base standard
1628th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
Data analysis: APs vs. base standard
2/27/2013 28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference 17
Element 9.1 Classification. Purpose admits value “accessibility restrictions”
2/27/2013
Non allowed modifications:1. Altering the relative location of an existing data element
(e.g. moving a parent element to a child one)
2. Creating a new element that mimics the semantic intent of an existing element
3. Changing the meaning of an existing element
4. Changing the name of an element
5. Extending a schema other than at a specified extension point
Data analysis: APs vs. base standard
1828th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
Non allowed modifications (cont.):6. Extending cardinality of an element
7. Adding new items in a controlled vocabulary list
8. Modifying the value space and data type of data elements from the base schema.
9. Defining data types or value spaces for aggregate data elements in the base schema
Data analysis: APs vs. base standard
1928th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
20
Number of simple data elements included in AP respect base schema
ABCore
ANZ-LOM
ARIADNE LOM
BEN
BIO@
GRO
COSMOS
DETLRM
eAcc
ess2
Learn
Eleone
t Meta
data
GLOBE M
etada
ta
Health
care
LOM
ICOPER LO
M
Interg
eo M
etada
ta
ISRA Core
Kentuc
ky
LRE
LOM-C
H
LOM-D
E
LOM-E
S
LOM FR
MACE
ManUeL
NL LOM
NORLOM
Normeti
c
OpenS
cout
Organic
.Edune
t OSR
Rural-e
Gov
SREB-SCORE
TrAgL
orVET
0.00%
20.00%
40.00%
60.00%
80.00%
100.00%
120.00%
2/27/2013
28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
21
Number of simple data elements included in AP respect base schema
2/27/2013
14 APs include less than the 58 elements in the base standard (44%)
12 APs include all the 58 data elements in the base standard (37%)
6 APs include more than the 58 elements in the base standard (19%)
Number of mandatory simple data elements stated by AP
2/27/2013 22
ABCore
ANZ-LOM
ARIADNE LO
MBEN
BIO@
GRO
COSMOS
DETLRM
eAcc
ess2
Learn
Eleone
t Meta
data
GLOBE M
etada
ta
Health
care
LOM
ICOPER LO
M
Interg
eo M
etada
ta
ISRA C
ore
Kentuc
ky
LRE
LOM-C
H
LOM-D
E
LOM-E
S
LOM FR
MACE
ManUeL
NL LOM
NORLOM
Normeti
c
OpenS
cout
Organic
.Edu
net
OSR
Rural-e
Gov
SREB-SCORE
TrAgL
orVET
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
Number of mandatory simple data elements stated by AP
2/27/2013 2328th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
25 APs state mandatory (simple) data elements (78%):
At top: Biosci Education Network (BEN) states 30 mandatory elements
At bottom: LOM-FR states 3 mandatory elements
7 APs don’t state any mandatory (simple) data elements (22%)
AP is conformant with base schema?
2/27/2013 24
ABCore
ANZ-LOM
ARIADNE LO
MBEN
BIO@
GRO
COSMOS
DETLRM
eAcc
ess2
Learn
Eleone
t Meta
data
GLOBE M
etada
ta
Health
care
LOM
ICOPER LO
M
Interg
eo M
etada
ta
ISRA C
ore
Kentuc
ky
LRE
LOM-C
H
LOM-D
E
LOM-E
S
LOM FR
MACE
ManUeL
NL LOM
NORLOM
Normeti
c
OpenS
cout
Organic
.Edu
net
OSR
Rural-e
Gov
SREB-SCORE
TrAgL
orVET
28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
AP is conformant with base schema?
2/27/2013 2528th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
4 APs are fully conformant with the base schema (12%)
25 APs are not fully conformant with the base schema (78%) The less respected restriction: Adding new items in a
controlled vocabulary list (18/25) The most respected restriction: Defining data types or value
spaces for aggregate data elements in the base schema (2/25)
In 3 cases, solid conclusions can not be made based on available sources (9%)
2/27/2013
Our questions are: Metadata records respect mandatory conditions
of simple data elements in the AP? Metadata records in the LRR apply controlled
vocabularies established by the AP? Metadata records in the LRR respect requirement
related to value spaces and data types in the AP?
Data analysis: Metadata records versus APs
2628th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
LRR follows mandatory conditions?
2/27/2013 27
ABCore
ANZ-LOM
ARIADNE LO
MBEN
BIO@
GRO
COSMOS
DETLRM
eAcc
ess2
Learn
Eleone
t Meta
data
GLOBE M
etada
ta
Health
care
LOM
ICOPER LO
M
Interg
eo M
etada
ta
ISRA C
ore
Kentuc
ky
LRE
LOM-C
H
LOM-D
E
LOM-E
S
LOM FR
MACE
ManUeL
NL LOM
NORLOM
Normeti
c
OpenS
cout
Organic
.Edu
net
OSR
Rural-e
Gov
SREB-SCORE
TrAgL
orVET
28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
LRR follows mandatory conditions?
2/27/2013 2828th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
• Not applicable in 5 LRRs (21%)• Mandatory conditions are followed in 5
LRRs (21%)• Mandatory conditions are not followed in 11
LRRs (46%)• In 3 cases, solid conclusions can not be
made based on available sources (12%)
LRR applies specified controlled vocabulary?
2/27/2013 29
ABCore
ANZ-LOM
ARIADNE LOM
BEN
BIO@
GRO
COSMOS
DETLRM
eAcc
ess2
Learn
Eleone
t Meta
data
GLOBE M
etada
ta
Health
care
LOM
ICOPER LO
M
Interg
eo M
etada
ta
ISRA Core
Kentuc
ky
LRE
LOM-C
H
LOM-D
E
LOM-E
S
LOM FR
MACE
ManUeL
NL LOM
NORLOM
Normeti
c
OpenS
cout
Organic
.Edune
t OSR
Rural-e
Gov
SREB-SCORE
TrAgL
orVET
28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
LRR applies specified controlled vocabularies?
2/27/2013 3028th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
• Specified controlled vocabularies are applied in 19 LRRs (79%)
• Specified controlled vocabularies are not applied in 1 LRR (4%)
• In 4 cases, solid conclusions can not be made based on available sources (17%)
LRR apply data types and values restrictions?
2/27/2013 31
ABCore
ANZ-LOM
ARIADNE LOM
BEN
BIO@
GRO
COSMOS
DETLRM
eAcc
ess2
Learn
Eleone
t Meta
data
GLOBE M
etada
ta
Health
care
LOM
ICOPER LO
M
Interg
eo M
etada
ta
ISRA Core
Kentuc
ky
LRE
LOM-C
H
LOM-D
E
LOM-E
S
LOM FR
MACE
ManUeL
NL LOM
NORLOM
Normeti
c
OpenS
cout
Organic
.Edune
t OSR
Rural-e
Gov
SREB-SCORE
TrAgL
orVET
28th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
LRR applies data types and values restrictions?
2/27/2013 3228th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
• Data types and values restrictions are applied in 11 LRRs (46%)
• Data types and values restrictions are not applied in 1 LRR (4%)
• In 12 cases, solid conclusions can not be made based on available sources (50%)
2/27/2013
Most AP are not conformant with IEEE LOM base standard.
Implementation of AP on LRR don’t even follow the application profile conditions.
Availability of interchange formats (XML, JSON... not to say RDF) for metadata records is not a broad practice.
Discussion: disappointing results
3328th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
Extension of controlled vocabularies with new words created adhoc.
Modifications in value spaces and data types of data elements.
Definition of data types or value spaces for aggregated data elements.
Discussion: main conformance black holes
3428th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
Discussion: lessons learned
Keep them simple. Metadata is an “overhead” task which should be minimum and as automatic as possible.
Force conformance through XML schemas, semantic web vocabularies or other applied constraints
Set a standard for the display of records and their reusability.
2/27/2013 3528th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
Based on those drawbacks, we have decided to move on new alternatives for metadata base schema: ISO/IEC 19788 Metadata for learning resources
(MLR) standard
…or… Learning Resources Metadata Initiative (LRMI), which
uses microdata and is led by significant companies.
Further steps: new standards in competition
3628th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
Nevertheless, we’ll keep on completing the map of IEEE LOM based AP.
In order to: Monitoring the evolution and adaptation of IEEE LOM APs to
the semantic web. Monitoring the solutions which LRRs adopt to manage
mentioned challenges. Monitoring the evolution of IEEE LOM standard in relation with
the raising of “new” learning resources metadata standards.
Further steps: we’ll keep monitoring
3728th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
We ask you to give us information about IEEE LOM APs and LRR using them, answering the questionnarie for this purpose available at:
Adaptabit http://bd.ub.edu/adaptabit/
We will offer you the publication of all the data about IEEE LOM APs as open data.
Further steps: collaborations?
3828th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference
2/27/2013
Questions,Opinions,
Suggestions…
Thanks for your attention!
3928th Annual International Technology and Persons with Disabilities Conference