[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita-learningspec] Groups - DITA Learning Content SC Meeting modified
Thanks to John Accardi for taking minutes!
-- Scott Hudson
DITA Learning Content SC Meeting has been modified by Scott Hudson
Date: Thursday, 19 July 2007
Time: 04:00pm - 05:00pm ET
Event Description:
USA Toll Free Number: 866-880-0098
USA Toll Number: +1-210-795-1100
Australia Toll Free Number: 1-800-993-862
Australia Toll Number: 61-2-8205-8112
PASSCODE: 6396088
For information on specific country access dialing, see http://www.mymeetings.com/audioconferencing/globalAccessFAQ.php.
Agenda:
Minutes:
DITA Learning Content SC minutes 19 Jul 2007
Attendees:
John Accardi
Allyn Radford
Robin Sloan
Scott Hudson
Primary agenda was to advance the IEEE LOM work initiated by Scott. Task was to fill in column H
with elements/attribute in our SC structures that would apply.
Much discussion began but not many value were filled in ... it seems like a slippery task
Key discussion points:
- IEEE LOM elements are mostly optional so that implementing organizations can select subsets
important them for required treatment. Allyn mention that it is rare that any implementing
organization uses all the elements/attributes. They pick the subset that works for them and
makes them required as necessary to support processing and deployment. In other words, standards
bodies make things optional for flexibility and implementing organizations make things mandatory
to support their specific business requirements.
- Scott mentioned that the LOM has nailed down the meaning, vocabulary and intentions of some
things and is very vague about other things. For example, aggregation level has subjective
values of 1, 2, 3 and 4.
- Allyn brought up that we should check that Scott's spreadsheet is based on the lastest standard
LOM (might be based on an earlier version). Vendor solutions typically going to IEEE LOM 1.0.
- Scott needed the group to consider whether the LOM elements need representation across all our
info types or only at map levels or both. Allyn brought up that we could consider an organization
that groups elements/attributes that describe the behavior of content (like conditional display)
in a separate, referenced metadata file but embeds elements/attributes that more directly
describe the content itself, inside the topic or map files. Allyn brought up SCORM SCOs as an
example that implements associated metadata files. Allyn also mentioned that in older HTML work,
easier maintenance was supported with separated metadata files. Scott mentioned that the DITA way
seemed to be object-oriented; keep the metadata inside the topic and map files, perhaps in the
prolog structure. This way all is organized and travels together.
- Scott reminded all that the idea was to be sure that our structures contained all the
elements/attributes to map to the LOM, all in support of a LOM manifest. Allyn suggested that
such data typically would primarily come from a map. John suggested that it might be helpful to look at a working manifest and work backwards to the source points in LOM and then to our
structures. Allyn suggested we use an example like this from ADL.
Suggestion to put structural stuff inside the topics themselves, while descriptive stuff could be
handled via an attribute like metaref to point to an external metadata file. This would be more
akin to how IMS can point to an external metadata file.
- John asked for a big picture clarification of why mapping our elements/attributes to LOM was
desirable. Scott and Allyn responded that if SCORM and IMS are based on some level of
implementation of the IEEE LOM, then if our DITA SC also had all the LOM mapped, deliverables had
a better chance of playing in those SCORM and IMS worlds.
- John mentioned that it was difficult to easily see all our elements/attributes in support of
quick, efficiently and best mappings to the LOM.
- Allyn brought up potential confusion about what would be metadata versus real content. For
example metadata for one content type might easily be seen as content proper in another. (e.g.,
Learning Content vs. Instructional Design)
- Allyn also mentioned that the LOM might be inherently insufficient for learning content
purposes. For example, the lack of some thing an learning objective. Scott agreed so the LOM
should be considered just a minimum.
- Scott and Allyn spoke about the fact that a high level perspective or diagram is needed, that
relates SCORM, DITA, IMS. The lack of this hinders our LOM mapping exercise.
This event is one in a list of recurring events.
Other event dates in this series:
Thursday, 14 June 2007, 11:00am to 12:00pm ET
Thursday, 21 June 2007, 11:00am to 12:00pm ET
Thursday, 28 June 2007, 11:00am to 12:00pm ET
Thursday, 05 July 2007, 11:00am to 12:00pm ET
Thursday, 12 July 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
Thursday, 26 July 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
Thursday, 02 August 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
Thursday, 09 August 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
Thursday, 16 August 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
Thursday, 23 August 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
Thursday, 30 August 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
Thursday, 06 September 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
Thursday, 13 September 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
Thursday, 20 September 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
Thursday, 27 September 2007, 04:00pm to 05:00pm ET
View event details:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-learningspec/event.php?event_id=15062
PLEASE NOTE: If the above link does not work for you, your email
application may be breaking the link into two pieces. You may be able to
copy and paste the entire link address into the address field of your web
browser.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]