http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/01/30/oh-good-more-metadata-specifications/ apparently much happier in person Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:35:07 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/01/30/oh-good-more-metadata-specifications/#comment-81153 Scott Leslie Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 418976153#comment-81153 What would have been useful for these folks to consider (maybe they have?) is actual usage data from existing repositories (and applications) that have used the existing LOM - what fields did people actual complete, and what fields did people actually try to use in creating complex queries. You did track all of this in Careo, right? ;-) If we set aside the issue of gathering the darn stuff in the first place (which is setting aside a whole lot!) one thing that's always frustrated me about the LOM was how incredibly abstract and arcane some of the fields seemed to be, like it was invented by a bunch of people sitting round wondering "if people could search for these little atomic bits of learning using any field conceivable, what would they use." Oh wait, that is how it was invented! What would have been useful for these folks to consider (maybe they have?) is actual usage data from existing repositories (and applications) that have used the existing LOM – what fields did people actual complete, and what fields did people actually try to use in creating complex queries. You did track all of this in Careo, right? If we set aside the issue of gathering the darn stuff in the first place (which is setting aside a whole lot!) one thing that’s always frustrated me about the LOM was how incredibly abstract and arcane some of the fields seemed to be, like it was invented by a bunch of people sitting round wondering “if people could search for these little atomic bits of learning using any field conceivable, what would they use.” Oh wait, that is how it was invented!

]]>