Comments on: LeMill – Plone-powered Learning Object Repository http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/06/20/lemill-plone-powered-learning-object-repository/ apparently much happier in person Fri, 20 Nov 2009 14:35:07 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: dnorman http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/06/20/lemill-plone-powered-learning-object-repository/#comment-81981 dnorman Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 1004895497#comment-81981 Great! Thanks for the clarification, Teemu. I assumed there was some form of implied license used, and the requirement for Materials to have the appropriate IEEE LOM metadata makes that clearer, too. I'll be following the LeMill project to see how it evolves. Great! Thanks for the clarification, Teemu. I assumed there was some form of implied license used, and the requirement for Materials to have the appropriate IEEE LOM metadata makes that clearer, too.

I’ll be following the LeMill project to see how it evolves.

]]> By: Teemu Leinonen http://www.darcynorman.net/2006/06/20/lemill-plone-powered-learning-object-repository/#comment-81984 Teemu Leinonen Wed, 31 Dec 1969 17:00:00 +0000 1004895497#comment-81984 <p class="MsoNormal"><span>Thank you for your valuable feedback and comments. Some comments: </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>You wrote: “there doesn't appear to be a license selector or copyright description available.” </span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Sorry. We will include the copyright explanation to the upload form. The draft FAQ (<a href="http://lemill.org/trac/wiki/FAQ"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="color: #000000" class="Apple-style-span">http://lemill.org/trac/wiki/FAQ</span></span></a>) explains that all content uploaded to the site are (/should be) licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5. This makes ripping and mixing possible.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>You wrote: </span><span>“update: found a page on the LeMill wiki describing <a href="http://lemill.org/trac/wiki/Mandatory"><span style="text-decoration: none"><span style="color: #000000" class="Apple-style-span">mandatory IEEE LOM metadata fields</span></span></a>, so perhaps that widget just isn't exposed for Pieces...”</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span>Yes. “Pieces” are not considered to be “learning objects” so they do not carry LOM metadata with them. All “materials” are described with LOM, though we try to avoid asking people to fill up forms and rather automate the metadata creation.</span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span> </span><span>LeMill’s Activities and Tools are just descriptions of them. They are there because we found out in the participatory design sessions that teachers would often like to search/browse “things” by thinking “what should I do with by student” (Activity) or “with what we could work with” (Tools). They do not always primary think “what content could we study”. The Activities and Tools are also linked to Materials with what they are used and vice-versa. This makes it possible to approach the Content from several angles. This is all “hypothesis” and we will test it with teachers in autumn. We may come-up with something different.</span></p> Thank you for your valuable feedback and comments. Some comments:

You wrote: “there doesn't appear to be a license selector or copyright description available.”

Sorry. We will include the copyright explanation to the upload form. The draft FAQ (http://lemill.org/trac/wiki/FAQ) explains that all content uploaded to the site are (/should be) licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 2.5. This makes ripping and mixing possible.

You wrote: “update: found a page on the LeMill wiki describing mandatory IEEE LOM metadata fields, so perhaps that widget just isn't exposed for Pieces…”

Yes. “Pieces” are not considered to be “learning objects” so they do not carry LOM metadata with them. All “materials” are described with LOM, though we try to avoid asking people to fill up forms and rather automate the metadata creation.

 LeMill’s Activities and Tools are just descriptions of them. They are there because we found out in the participatory design sessions that teachers would often like to search/browse “things” by thinking “what should I do with by student” (Activity) or “with what we could work with” (Tools). They do not always primary think “what content could we study”. The Activities and Tools are also linked to Materials with what they are used and vice-versa. This makes it possible to approach the Content from several angles. This is all “hypothesis” and we will test it with teachers in autumn. We may come-up with something different.

]]>