[Open-education] [cc-openedu] Re: [OER-advocacy] Fwd: OER Metadata Standards for Discovery: Call for Collaborators

[Pen Lister]

thats super useful for my work Angie.

Ill respond again later to Phil and yourself but finding this a very useful
thread. Thanks.

Pen

ps I keep getting return errors from the jiscmail when i reppoly - i try
clicking on the approve link but still I am not added to the group - any
tips appreciated!

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
penworks.net <https://www.penworks.net> | @penworks | skype:penworkz


On Fri, Feb 1, 2019 at 3:12 PM Angie Baker <anleba87 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi All,
> There are multiple sets of schemas for tagging.  LRMI, CEDS, and so many
> more.  In my experience, I have found that neither the resource creator or
> the process/person adding content to an LMS are on the same page.
> I have worked with states, districts, and vendors to harvest content.
> Each on having their own metadata fields.
> In US, we had a group of 13 states “adopt” common educational metadata
> tags so that we could share resources across states easily.  For reasons
> such as inability to change LOR input fields and lack of understanding this
> “adoption” failed.
> This is a wide field. I will say that a lesson I learned through the state
> tagging initiative was we had too many fields with too specific option
> sets.  I have tagged thousands of resources and manage my states LOR and
> application teachers use to search our LOR.
> Most Common search fields after grade and subject:
> Keyword
> Media type (audio, video, doc, etc)
> Instructional type  (interactive, module, lesson, etc)
> And rating.
> Everything else is just nice to have.
>
> The common tags I see most content have:
> Title, description, subject, grade.
>
> Interesting topic.
>
> On Feb 1, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker at pjjk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> On 01/02/2019 12:47, Pen Lister wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> thanks for your input.
>
> Sorry about not using correct terminology about 'lobbying' - it was just a
> figure of speech. Being involved at relevant level in standards bodies to
> be able to adopt interoperable meta properties is all I am talking about.
>
> No problem. I baulked at the implication that there is some other group of
> people somewhere doing this work who we should be influencing. The only way
> to get influence is to do the work. Probably me being over-sensitive.
>
>
> In terms of adding 'specialist terms' - Im talking about basic properties
> that are very likely in use already - for example EQF level and topic area
> would probably be enough to begin with.
>
> EQF *is* specialist. It's specific to education, and only used in Europe.
>
>
> The idea is to simplify as currently the sheer amount of derivative RDF
> approaches (meta or inline, different nomenclatures, different validation
> rules etc etc) probably put most people off altogether.
>
> I noted with some consternation that though these RDF languages might be
> popular amongst proponents of OER they are very often not used at all
> elsewhere. Open Graph remains the single highest used RDF, for obvious
> reasons.
>
> My reading of http://webdatacommons.org/structureddata/#toc3 is that
> schema.org is more widely used in terms of number of pay level domains
> and number of entities described. But it's not easy to make straight
> comparisons with so many variables in syntax and the nature of the data
> models.
>
> I think if you can get a tag into Open Graph for representing educational
> level that would be a great start in making OG useful for representing
> educational properties. Though there will then be issues about what terms
> you use to describe the educational level.
> I'll be at the OER19 conference in a couple of months, I'ld be happy to
> talk about this to anyone there.
>
> Phil
>
> --
>
> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance learning;
> information systems for education.
> CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for
> innovation in education technology.
>
> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,
> number SC569282.
> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in
> England number OC399090
>
> --
> This is the list for the Creative Commons Open Education Platform.
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Open Education Platform" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to cc-openedu+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to cc-openedu at googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/cc-openedu.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.okfn.org/pipermail/open-education/attachments/20190201/d85e22b8/attachment-0002.html>