Re: [dita-learningspec] Groups - DITA Learning Content SC Meetingmodified

[Allyn Radford <allynr@learnilities.com.au>]

Hi all

Just one correction in the minutes.  In the notes below there is a 
change required to the following statement:

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.


I actually made the comment the other way around.  The purely 
descriptive content could be in an associated file whereas the 
"functional" metadata could be inside the content file.  These are 
suggestions only and I must confess that I have not yet settled in my 
own thinking on this.  It is 'a' possibility.

As an extension to this that was not covered in the meeting, so is not 
applicable to the minutes, is the problem that sits behind this issue.  
I think I first had to consider it about 6 or so years ago when building 
an infrastructure that required content to be interoperable and 
discoverable.  When we considered the QTI type content and were tackling 
the issues of granularity of that content and how it should be stored, 
we were somewhat sobered by the consideration that we could end up 
creating a whole bunch of metadata files that were substantially larger 
than the individual QTI objects they described.  Is that really worthwhile?

There is another piece of thinking we need to join to this as well.  
There will never, ever be a single metadata schema that suits all 
purposes.  The metadata will be deemed to be correct for the needs of a 
community of practice by that community of practice and is not going to 
be a subset of a single metadata schema that suits all the metadata 
purposes of the world.

Given those two issues of a) metadata strategy and file size of metadata 
compared to content, and b) no single metadata schema will suit all 
needs - then what goes into DITA and what does not?  Our current 
considerations are limited because we are only considering a learning 
specialization for SCORM which relies on LOM.  What about other 
requirements.  Let me pose the following illustrative problem:

There is a new specialization starting up for the semiconductor 
industry.  Let's say I am in that industry and produce a component that 
will be used in a piece of flight navigation equipment that will be 
built in to an aircraft that is supplied to the US DoD.  That 
procurement process requires the technical documentation and the 
training be supplied to each of the upstream vendors.  If I am creating 
the content in DITA format, there will be a requirement by both the 
aircraft industry and DoD to have the content in S1000D format.  Ok, 
that could be a transform.  Then it would need to be *dynamically*
transformed into training content.  Another transform, because it would 
have to be SCORM-based.  Both S1000D and SCORM are mandated by defense 
instructions.  So, what metadata schema is used?  When is all the 
appropriate metadata added and by whom? and where?  We are now talking 
about metadata for the semiconductor industry, plus S1000D metadata, 
plus LOM/SCORM metadata plus whatever is required by the individual 
companies involved along the way for data management purposes 
internally.  Is accumulating all the metadata in the dita file 
sustainable?  Does that simplify or complicate maintenance of both 
content and metadata?  Will the metadata elements whether empty or 
filled be bigger than the content in the file itself?

Now, I don't have answers to these questions, but I think we really need 
to think about the requirements of the solution to be robust and to 
serve the needs of any industry group that might become involved in the 
authoring, assembly and management (through life) of structured 
content.  We need to keep at least one eye on the issues that arise from 
content strategies during implementation.

Hope this makes sense and that it is useful.
Allyn


scott.hudson@flatironssolutions.com wrote:
> 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.
>
>   
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> BEGIN:VCALENDAR
> METHOD:PUBLISH
> VERSION:2.0
> PRODID:-//Kavi Corporation//NONSGML Kavi Groups//EN
> X-WR-CALNAME:My Calendar
> BEGIN:VEVENT
> CATEGORIES:MEETING
> STATUS:TENTATIVE
> DTSTAMP:20070720T000000Z
> DTSTART:20070719T200000Z
> DTEND:20070719T210000Z
> SEQUENCE:9
> SUMMARY:DITA Learning Content SC Meeting
> DESCRIPTION:USA Toll Free Number: 866-880-0098\nUSA Toll Number:
>   +1-210-795-1100\nAustralia Toll Free Number: 1-800-993-862\nAustralia
>   Toll Number: 61-2-8205-8112\nPASSCODE: 6396088\n\nFor information on
>   specific country access dialing\, see
>   http://www.mymeetings.com/audioconferencing/globalAccessFAQ.php.\n\nGroup:
>   DITA Learning and Training Content Specialization SC\nCreator: John
>   Hunt
> URL:http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-learningspec/event.php?event_id=15062
> UID:http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/dita-learningspec/event.php?event_id=15062
> END:VEVENT
> END:VCALENDAR

-- 
Allyn J Radford
Principal
Learn'ilities' Pty Ltd
www.learnilities.com

Solution Architecture Consulting
Standards-based eLearning Systems and Content
Digital Content Exchange Planning and Development

Phone: +61 (0)3 9751 0730
Mob:   +61 (0)419 009 320

--