innovation in metadata design, implementation & best practices

DCMI Education Community

DCMI Logo DC-Education Working Group
Breakout Session

30 September 2003, Seattle, Washington, U.S.A.

The DC-Education Working Group held its face-to-face breakout session at DC2003 on 30 September 2003 from 13:30-15:00. The following paragraphs briefly summarize the Working Group discussion and outline the Group's working agenda for 2003-2004. The PowerPoint presentation used during the breakout session is available.

Accomplishments of 2002-2003:

The Working Group meeting began with a brief overview of accomplishments in 2002-2003:

  • Completion of the empirical study of techniques for developing high-level vocabularies based on extant vocaularies with a focus on audience and resource type vocabuliries.
  • Planning for the co-location of meetings of of IEEE LOM and DCMI in Seattle and the joint meeting on advancing the Ottawa Communiqué.

Work Plan for 2003-2004:

The Working Group focused on the coming year by duscssing the following points:

  1. DC-Education Working Group Mission.

    There was considerable discussion regarding the mission of the Working Group. Since it's founding in 1999, the Working Group has led development of three new DCMI namespace elements and element refinements–«audience» (a new top-level element), «mediator» (an element refining «audience»), and «conformsTo» (an element refining «relation»). In addition, the Working Group has been grappling through a Vocabulary Task Force with the need to have generally recognized value schemes in the domain of education and training. It was the concensus of those present at the meeting that while continuing to explore the extension of the DCMI namespaces to accomodate descriptions of resources in education and training, more Working Group effort needs to be expended building bridges among existing metadata standardization efforts and developing a clearinghouse of project information in the domain. The results of the discussion were three-fold: (1) a reframing of the Working Group[ mission; (2) a reaffirmation of previous efforts at collaboration among entities in standards making; and (2) a commitment to build a project information clearinghouse.

    Following is the proposed Working Group mission that will be presented to the DCMI Advisory Board for approval:

    "While the objectives of the Working Group in 2003-2004 will include continuing discussion and development of proposals for the use of Dublin Core metadata in the description of educational resources, particular emphasis will be placed on developing strong, ongoing (formal and informal) working relationships among existing metadata standards initiatives for resource description in learning, education and training with the aim of advancing the goal of metadata interoperability within the domain. The Working Group will develop an informal, online clearinghouse to document projects within the domain. The scope of the Working Group interests includes metadata for the discovery, use, and management of resources applicable within and among many national and cross-sector education communities (e.g., pre-school, K-12, further and higher education, vocational and technical training, and lifelong learning)."
  2. Discussion of Vocabulary Development Work.

    Joseph Tennis presented data from his follow-up study based on cluster analysis in vocabulary development using extant controlled vocabularies. It was decided that the work of the Vocabulary Task Force in development processes for vocabulary development in the areas of «audience», resource «type», and pedagogy should continue. A full report on the research is forthcoming.

  3. Discussion of DCMI/IEEE LOM Application Profile Work.

    Concerned was expressed regarding the slow pace at which the dialog regarding an application profile that webs terms from DCMI and IEEE LOM has been advancing. However, it was the sense of the group that the efforts toward developing such an application profile should continue. The fact that IEEE LTSC had decided to co-locate its meeting with DCMI in Seattle was viewed as encouraging.

  4. Discussion of Need for Project Information Clearinghouse.

    The Working Group expressed the need for development of a clearinghouse to document education and training domain projects including (but not limited to) references to project names, contacts and documentation. It was deemed a useful project to try and put such a clearinghouse in place during the 2003-2004 work year.

Report Submitted by:
Stuart A. Sutton, Co-Chair