The story so far: through the learning materials application profile scoping study we are investigating the metadata requirements when storing learning materials in a repository. The first news to tell you is that we wont be finishing at the end of January as originally planned, but will have a draft report available by the end of February. Most importantly at the moment we have a straw man model that we hope to use in the analysis that we would welcome comments on.
Our starting point has been that metadata will be required to describe many resource types and to support many activities each of which will be a domain of expertise in its own right. We have now finalized our list of these domains relevant to LMAP, and are talking to representative experts about metadata requirements related to each domain. Feel free to get in touch if you’ve got something to tell us. I hope to be able to put links into this list to the information that we acquire for each domain, so that this will become the working document for the synthesis.
In order to help with the other part of the project, the analysis, I thought it would be useful to have a domain model for learning materials in repositories. The result, on which I would like comments, is a two-part model based on OAIS and FRBR dealing with what the repository does and what the object is respectively. I don’t claim that this is the only view of repositories / learning materials, or that it is the best, but I hope that it is at least a valid view that doesn’t miss out anything too important. Please let me know if you agree or not, either as a reply to this blog post or by email direct to me or to the CETIS-Metadata list if you would like this to be discussed more widely.