Ipseity

Green Paper: (discussion document)

An important and valuable characteristic of MLR (see ISO/IEC Project 19788-1) would be for this metadata model to present a highly simplified, “kernel” element set for those wishing to work with only very basic metadata records. RSS, folksonomies and social bookmarking practices have all recently and powerfully demonstrated the utility and traction that can be gained by these kinds of very simple metadata models. More importantly, the economies of scale for many educational institutions and processes frequently demand it. Equally important for this metadata model is that it also accommodate the kind of complexity that is currently available, for example, in the IEEE LOM –but that it enable, but not impose, this complexity. The categories and element arrangements, below, attempt to address both of these divergent requirements simultaneously.

The model presents 6 core elements. All are top-level, mandatory or required: Identification, Description, Creation, Contextualization, Access, and Record. Each of these elements is also an element category, containing further sub-elements. These top-level, mandatory elements can be used and defined in two ways:

1. As containers for more specific sub-elements. In this case, the top-level element is defined exclusively in terms of its function as a category. Generally, this definition will begin with the phrasing “This category describes [or identifies] those characteristics of the resource that…”
2. As a data element that can be assigned a particular value that describes the learning resource. In this case, the definition of the element is taken directly from the first the first, “leaf” data element beneath it –from the first element occurring after it that asks for a value.

For example the element “Identification,” when used as a simple data element, is defined as “An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context.” When the sub-elements beneath it are populated individually, the element would be defined as “this category applies those aspects of the learning resource which can be unambiguously identified within a given context.” (Note that these two definitions could also simply both be listed as definitions of the top level category element, with an explanation of the circumstances under which each definition applies.)

This same principal applies to “lower-level” container elements as well: They can be populated as data elements, in which case they inherit their definition from the first, “leaf” data element beneath it. They can also be used simply as containers of more specific elements, in which case their own definition applies exclusively.

Note: Both the categories as well as their sub-elements are presented as suggestions, not as definitive solutions.

Each category element can repeated any number of times.

Each element can have up to four attributes:

1. Numeric identifier (e.g. “1.1” )
2. Name (in a human language; e.g. “Title,” “Titre”)
3. Language (human language used in the element value; ISO/IEC 10646; Note: “none” is an acceptable value.)
4. Relation (identifier and iteration number of element to which the current element is related.   E.g. if the second iteration of contextualization.relation.type is related to the second iteration of contextualization.relation.identifier, then this attribute can express this relation.   Note: “Chains” of such relationships can be constructed through the consistent and coordinated use of this relation attribute across element iterations.)

Elements:

1. Identification: Unambiguous specification of the resource.
   1. Identifier
      1. Value: An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context.
      2. Type: The name or designator of the identification or cataloging scheme for the resource. A namespace scheme.
   2. Format: The physical or digital manifestation of the resource. (MIME type)
   3. Size: Number of kilobytes required for the resource, in the form in which it is most commonly accessed.
   4. Type: The nature or genre of the content of the resource. (collective/composite works)
2. Description: An account of the intellectual content of the resource.
   1. Title: A name or very brief characterization of the resource
   2. Description: An account of the content of the resource.
      1. Subject: (reuses elements from classification)
      2. Entry:
      3. ID: An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context.
      4. Source
      5. Purpose
   3. Language: A language of the intellectual content of the resource.
   4. Type: The nature or genre of the content of the resource. (include collective/composite works)
3. Creation: Information about contributions to the resource.
   1. Creator
      1. Last Name / First Name
      2. Organization            
      3. E-mail
      4. Phone number
      5. Street address
      6. City
      7. Postal/Zip Code
      8. Country
   2. Creator.Date
   3. Contributor (or other role)
   4. Contribution.Date
4. Contextualization: Information concerning the environment in which the resource will be used. ("Environment" includes both audience and resources.)
   1. Audience
      1. Role: The function/nature of the typical end user.
      2. Level/Age
   2. Instructional Method
   3. Objective
   4. Relation
      1. Identifier
         1. Value: An unambiguous reference to the target resource within a given context.
         2. Type: The name or designator of the identification or cataloging scheme for the resource. A namespace scheme.
      2. Kind: Type of relationship.
5. Access: Conditions for use of the resource.
   1. Adaptability: one or more of the following: has visual, has auditory, etc.
   2. Technical Requirements
   3. Legal Conditions (Rights)
6. Record: Description of the record itself
   1. LastUpdated (Date)
   2. Identifier
   3. Value
   4. Type
   5. Author
   6. Format
   7. Type

Micro (content) Genres (the very beginning of a very early draft)

Design and conceptualization of information and resources for the web, as well as the language use with them –all of these have all been registering a gradual “shrinking” process. Instead of an enveloping user “experience,” replete with pervasive Website “metaphors” and “stickiness” (think of Amazon.com), attention has focused on distributed Web services, linking technologies, and the syndication of atomic items, whether ads (Google’s AdSense) or Blog postings. What is perhaps most striking when looking through Web design books from only three or four years ago (e.g. “Information Architecture”) is the scale of the text, graphics and whitespace on the exemplary websites they feature.

Not surprisingly, a corresponding change has occurred in terms of the categories, classifications of content types, and the means employed in putting them to use. The application, for example, of ways of organizing documents (books, magazines) through means of surrogates (library catalogue records) was translated into notion of a “metadata record” describing a corresponding online “resource.” This earlier gave rise to the GILS standard for creating such catalogue records (with xx fields or elements), which later gave way to Dublin Core (15 fields), and is now giving way to far simpler approaches (e.g. RSS with x fields; ).

Yes, I’m back!

What kept me away for so long?

I’ve been designing and delivery a course (partially online) for the Faculty of Information Studies at the University of Toronto: “Information Technology Applications” (http://learningspaces.org/1311). Comments, questions, suggestions are always welcome.