lom survey: final report dr. norm friesen dublin, sept. 12, 2004

LOM Survey: Final Report

Dr. Norm Friesen

Dublin, Sept. 12, 2004

Survey History

• Paris, 03/2003: “It is important that SC36/WG4 understand the state of current practices and use of the LOM standard and other metadata for learning resources.”

• Korea, 09/2003: Preliminary findings provided –focus on application profiles & random, manually-inspected sets

• Final report: statistical analysis on “actual” element use & values assigned

Preliminary Survey findings

• A small number of the potential LOM elements are used (1/2-2/3); few potential iterations used

• Many of the elements used are in the Dublin Core Element Set

• Use of Educational elements is not necessarily high

• LOM structures & elements for 9:Classification are utilized very effectively and precisely.

• Problems with vCard

Sample sets used in Study

Sets of records varying in size from 75 to over 3000; 50 randomly selected from each (n=250); Special thanks to all participants:

• ARIADNE Project (EU)

• the LTSN (UK)

• Metalab (France)

• CELTS (China)

• CAREO (Canada)

Analysis Issues

• Native XML database required to aggregate & query LOM instances:– The record sets varied in terms of the precise

datamodel and bindings upon which they were based.

– Abstracting data from XML representations for use in other manipulation technologies (e.g. relational databases) is "unwieldy"

– Invalid vCard constructions: Existing LOM examples are erroneous; instances could not be parsed using existing vCard processors.

Analysis Method

• As in other LOM surveys, (e.g. Najjar, Ternier, Duval, 2003), improvised aggregation and analysis techniques were used

• String matches on individual lines of LOM records, retrieving previous or subsequent lines of XML.

• These aggregation & query problems, and the need to improvise is the 1st survey finding, and perhaps its most important.

Data Portability

• Data portability and reuse: the raison d'être of the LOM!

• conventional and low cost technologies cannot easily be used to realize LOM data portability and reuse

• not at all a positive indicator for increased sharing and reuse between implementa-tions and across jurisdictions

Two types of Findings

1. What elements are used?

2. What are the values assigned to these elements (especially important because values can determine the application of subordinate elements)

Frequency of Element Use

0102030405060708090100

6.3:

Des

crip

tion

5.5:

Inte

nded

:End

:Use

r:R

o

9.2.

2.1:

Id

4.2:

Siz

e

5.1:

Inte

ract

ivity

:Typ

e

6.2:

Cop

yrig

ht:a

nd:O

ther

:

3.3:

Met

adat

a:S

chem

a

6:R

ight

s

1.5:

Key

wor

d

3.4:

Lang

uage

2.3.

3:D

ate

3.2:

Con

trib

ute

3.2.

1:R

ole

3.2.

2:E

ntity

3:M

eta-

met

adat

a

2.3.

2:E

ntity

4:T

echn

ical

4.3:

Loca

tion

2.3:

Con

trib

ute

9:C

lass

ifica

tion

9.2.

2.2:

Ent

ry

1.4:

Des

crip

tion

1.1:

Iden

tifie

r

1.1.

1:C

atal

og

1.1.

2:E

ntry

9.2:

Tax

on:P

ath

9.2.

1:S

ourc

e

9.2.

2.:T

axon

5.2:

Lear

ning

:Res

ourc

e:T

2.3.

1:R

ole

5:E

duca

tiona

l

2:Li

fe:C

ycle

1.3:

Lang

uage

4.1:

For

mat

1.2:

Titl

e

9.1:

Pur

pose

Frequency of Element Use

The most frequently used elements (not container elements; %-tage):

• ClassificationPurpose, • General.Title• Technical.Format • (object & metadata record) Language• Lifecycle.Contribute.Role• Learning Resource Type

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

GeneralIdentif ierCatalog

EntryTitle

LanguageDescription

Keyw ordCoverageStructure

Aggregation LevelAggregation Level

Life CycleVersion

StatusContribute

RoleEntityDate

Meta-metadataIdentif ierCatalog

EntryContribute

RoleEntityDate

Metadata SchemaLanguageTechnical

FormatSize

LocationRequirementOrComposite

TypeName

Minimum VersionMaximum Version

Installation RemarksOther Platform Requirements

DurationEducational

Interactivity TypeLearning Resource Type

Interactivity LevelSemantic Density

Intended End User RoleContext

Typical Age RangeDiff iculty

Typical Learning TimeDescriptionLanguage

RightsCost

Copyright and Other RestrictionsDescription

RelationKind

ResourceIdentif ierCatalog

EntryDescriptionAnnotation

EntityDate

DescriptionClassif ication

PurposeTaxon Path

SourceTaxon

IdEntry

DescriptionKeyw ord

Least Frequently Used Elements

0

5

10

15

20

25

1.6

Covera

ge

4.4

.1.3

Min

imum

Vers

ion

4.4

.1.4

Maxim

um

Vers

ion

5.4

Sem

antic

Density

7.2

.2 D

escriptio

n

8 A

nnota

tion

8.1

Entit

y

8.2

Date

8.3

Descriptio

n

9.3

Descriptio

n

5.1

1 L

anguage

4.7

Dura

tion

7.2

.1.2

Entr

y

5.8

Diff

iculty

1.7

Str

uctu

re

2.2

Sta

tus

2.1

Vers

ion

4.5

Insta

llatio

n R

em

ark

s

5.3

Inte

ractiv

ity L

evel

5.1

Descriptio

n

5.6

Conte

xt

Most and Least Used Elements

• Most (= or > 80%):– General: Identifier, Title, Description, Keyword– Authorship, other contributions– Technical & Educational Format/Type– Classification (Purpose=Discipline)

• Least (< 20% & > 0%):– Duration, Difficulty, Structure, Granularity &

Version

% Use by Category: General

0102030405060708090

100

1Gen

eral

1.1I

dent

ifier

1.1.

1Cat

alog

1.1.

2Ent

ry

1.2T

itle

1.3L

angu

age

1.4D

escr

iptio

n

1.5K

eyw

ord

1.6C

over

age

1.7S

truc

ture

1.8A

ggre

gatio

nLe

vel

% Use by Category: LifeCycle

0102030405060708090

100

2:Li

fe C

ycle

2.1:

Ver

sion

2.2:

Sta

tus

2.3:

Con

trib

ute

2.3.

1:R

ole

2.3.

2:E

ntity

2.3.

3:D

ate

% Use by Category: Technical

0102030405060708090

100

4:T

echn

ical

4.1:

For

mat

4.2:

Siz

e

4.3:

Loca

tion

4.4:

Req

uire

men

t

4.4.

1:O

rCom

posi

te

4.4.

1.1:

Typ

e

4.4.

1.2:

Nam

e

4.4.

1.3:

Min

imum

Ver

sion

4.4.

1.4:

Max

imum

Ver

sion

4.5:

Inst

alla

tion

Rem

arks

4.6:

Oth

er P

latf

orm

Req

uire

men

ts

4.7:

Dur

atio

n

% Use by Category: Educational

0102030405060708090

100

5:E

duca

tiona

l

5.1:

Inte

ract

ivity

Typ

e5.

2:Le

arni

ngR

esou

rce

Typ

e

5.3:

Inte

ract

ivity

Leve

l

5.4:

Sem

antic

Den

sity

5.5:

Inte

nded

End

Use

r R

ole

5.6:

Con

text

5.7:

Typ

ical

Age

Ran

ge

5.8:

Diff

icul

ty

5.9:

Typ

ical

Lear

ning

Tim

e

5.1:

Des

crip

tion

5.11

:Lan

guag

e

% Use by Category: Classification

0102030405060708090

100

9:C

lass

ifica

tion

9.1:

Pur

pose

9.2:

Tax

on P

ath

9.2.

1:S

ourc

e

9.2.

2.:T

axon

9.2.

2.1:

Id

9.2.

2.2:

Ent

ry

9.3:

Des

crip

tion

Key

wor

d

Values Assigned to Elements: Title

– Almost 1/3 of the records specifically examined showed signs of using a single title field to accommodate multiple title components.

– These titles included punctuation separating these components, and/or included incremented numeric values to differentiate between otherwise identical title values

LifeCycle.Contribute.Role

020406080

100120140160180

Aut

hor

Pub

lishe

r

Val

idat

or

unkn

own

initi

ator

term

inat

or

valid

ator

edito

r

grap

hica

lde

sign

erte

chni

cal

impl

emen

ter

cont

ent

prov

ider

tech

nica

lva

lidat

ored

ucat

iona

lva

lidat

or

scrip

t w

riter

inst

ruct

iona

lde

sign

ersu

bjec

tm

atte

r

vCard Fields in Contribute.Entity

0

50

100

150

200

250

FN

OR

G

EM

AIL

BD

AY

TE

L

TE

L.x

EM

AIL

.Typ

e

MA

ILE

R

TIT

LE

RO

LE

LOG

O

KE

Y

KE

Y.T

ype.

x

X-x

Technical.Format

0

20

40

60

80

100

120T

ext/

htm

l

Applic

ation/p

df

Applic

ation/java*

Image/jpeg

Image/g

if

Vid

eo*

Applic

ation/m

spow

erp

oin

t

*

Applic

ation/m

sw

ord

Shockw

ave-f

lash*

Educational.LearningResourceType

05

1015202530354045

*Hypert

ext/w

ebpage

Text

…P

resenta

tion

note

s

Narr

ativ

e text

*Exerc

ise

Exposé

Glo

ssary

Slid

e/s

lides

Vid

eo

Experience

Com

pute

r-based

Tuto

rial

Classification.Purpose

020406080

100120140160180200

*Dis

cip

line

Ed.

Level

Idea

Module

Pre

req.

Activity

CC

D

Conclusions: Portability & vCard

• LOM structures make data portability difficult to realize using conventional and low cost technologies.

• Any advantage that the inclusion of vCard presents is far outweighed by the difficulties of its implementation, and the under-utilization of vCard fields in actual LOM instances.

Conclusions: Elements and Values Selected Frequently

• LOM IS used to describe intellectual content of resources:– General: Identifier, Title, Description, Keyword– LifeCycle.Contribute (role = Author and

publisher)– Classification (Purpose=Discipline)

• LOM IS used to describe file and media characteristics– Technical.Format, Technical.Size, Location– Educational.Learning Resource Type (text,

hypertext, notes, etc.)

Conclusions: Elements and Values Seldom Selected

• LOM use does not emphasize description of an educational context or level:– Educational.Semantic Density 0%– Educational.Context <20%– EndUserRole 40%

• LOM NOT used to describe resources in terms of software objects:– Structure, Version (i.e. Alpha, Beta), Status <18% – Aggregation level <27%– Contribute.Role="terminator" “technical

implementer/validator“ 0%

Conclusion: Premise for Study

• Careful examination of the ways in which the LOM is currently being implemented is of great value for future standardization work, and serves an important basis for defining future metadata requirements and approaches.

Duval & Hodgins, 2004:

we believe that…many of the current [LOM implementation] developments and efforts are somewhat misguided: …many of these efforts are perfecting the irrelevant, as they focus on the literal use of metadata, thus seeking to continue historical and current practices, rather than trying to design, experiment with and implement more innovative and effective ones.

Conclusion

…far from being "misguided" and "irrelevant," past and current

implementations represent the only source of verifiable, empirically-based data directly

related to the details of practice and requirements.

lom survey: final report dr. norm friesen dublin, sept. 12, 2004

Documents