LOM Survey: Final Report

1. LOM Survey: Final Report Dr. Norm Friesen Dublin, Sept. 12, 2004

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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.

6. 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.

7. 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

8. Two types of Findings • What elements are used? • What are the values assigned to these elements (especially important because values can determine the application of subordinate elements)

9. Frequency of Element Use

10. 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

13. Least Frequently Used Elements

14. 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

15. % Use by Category: General

16. % Use by Category: LifeCycle

17. % Use by Category: Technical

18. % Use by Category: Educational

19. % Use by Category: Classification

20. 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

21. LifeCycle.Contribute.Role

22. vCard Fields in Contribute.Entity

23. Technical.Format

24. Educational.LearningResourceType

25. Classification.Purpose

26. 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.

27. 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.)

28. 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%

29. 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.

30. 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.

31. 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.