8 Responses to Musing about metadata for OER

  1. Phil Barker says:

    Hi Nick, I think that your starting points for metadata requirements should be the programme requirements and you own project requirements. Try not to put effort into creating metadata unless you know it will be useful (you have plenty of other things you could be doing). You should also bear in mind that not all information that you want to convey to users of the resource needs to be encoded in formal, machine readable metadata. For example, the important but rather complex set of information around attribution, provenance, and copyright ownership is perhaps quite easy to deal with by have a “credits” page or section on the resource itself; what do you gain by making this machine readable? See John’s post on Open Educational Resources, metadata, and self-description.

    More specific to your musings and the technical set up you have, I wouldn’t put keywords from controlled vocabularies into the the LOM’s general keywords field, for the simple reason that you will lose the information on which vocabulary/ies you used. Use LOM classification instead. That has advantages if you’re sending the metadata elsewhere and also with Intralibrary it means that you put the resource into a browsable hierarchy of classification headings. (Incidentally the LOM keywords field is a good place to put the UKOER tag.)

    I’ll be writing a blog post of my own on this in the next week or two, I’ll try to make sure to send a trackback link.

  2. Gareth Waller says:

    Hi Nick,

    Interesting post, just some comments from a Jorum perspective.

    As I’m sure you have seen, the Jorum OER Deposit tool http://deposit.jorum.ac.uk (which was developed to support the OER programme) has a very low barrier of entry for a depositor in terms of metadata. We wanted to reduce the metadata profile down to a minimum set to help depositors but still contain enough metadata for resources to be discovered. The profile is as follows:

    Mandatory metadata set:

    – Title
    – Overview (Description)
    – Keywords
    – Author Name
    – Licence

    Recommended metadata set:

    – Project name
    – Creation date
    – Classification (JACS subject classification)

    System Generated metadata set:

    – Publisher
    – Contributed Date
    – Language
    – Identifier

    The ‘keywords’ metadata is currently user generated and does not use a controlled vocabulary.

    As you are already aware, the open side to Jorum will be served from DSpace i.e. any content licensed under a Creative Commons license. DSpace supports qualified Dublin Core as its metadata set and does not out of the box support LOM. We will therefore be applying a metadata crosswalk to convert metadata stored in an IMS content package to Dublin Core (e.g. content which was deposited via the OER deposit tool).

    I agree with you that a lightweight metadata template is a good idea as it makes the deposit process much quicker for the contributor and also extra metadata may be redundant if an end user never searches on these fields.

    Resource discovery is an important consideration for Jorum and integration with major search engines e.g. Google is something we are looking at.

    Hope that helps

    Gareth Waller
    (Jorum Technical Manager)

    • Nick says:

      Hi Gareth

      Really useful thanks.

      Yes I saw the Jorum OER Deposit tool demo’d at the #ukoer startup meeting and was impressed by the low barrier of entry for a depositor in terms of metadata; in my excitement I assumed it was based on SWORD and was depositing resources directly into intraLibrary – I’ve learned since of course that it is based on MrCute and that Jorum is actually using DSpace to serve OER and I would very much like to develop something similar for the Leeds met repository – using SWORD – if at all possible.

      I figured that DSpace used qualified DC rather than LOM out of the box – we’ve had to go the other way for research with a metadata crosswalk from LOM to DC.

      Cheers

      Nick

  3. Pingback: Link or file in JorumOpen? « Repository News

  4. Pingback: John’s JISC CETIS blog » Comparing metadata requirements for OERs (part 1)

  5. Pingback: John’s JISC CETIS blog » The use of IEEE LOM in the UKOER programme

  6. Pingback: Comparing metadata requirements for OERs (part 1) | kavubob's miscellanea

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: