Difference between revisions of "LRMI/CFP"

The Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI) to create a common metadata vocabulary for describing learning resources is seeking the participation of education metadata experts to participate in a technical Working Group (WG; high time commitment) and a technical Advisory Group (AG; lower time commitment) over the next 6-12 months.

Spurred by the growing need to make online learning resources more discoverable and the opportunity created by the launch of schema.org (a Bing/Google/Yahoo! project to develop and encourage use of metadata vocabularies which can be used to enhance search results), LRMI has been formed. Its goals, in brief:

• Document an abstract vocabulary representing the most common descriptions of learning resources used by existing educational metadata standards (e.g., LOM), by online publishers of learning resources (whether a machine-readable vocabulary is used or not), and addressing the contemporary desire to link learning resources to learning outcomes (e.g., ASN).

• Create a concrete expression of the abstract vocabulary for use within the schema.org hierarchy. Given this deployment target and the motivation to increase discoverability, utility for enhancing search queries and results will be a desired property for each term in the abstract vocabulary.

• Create a concrete expression of the abstract vocabulary as RDF, for interoperability with other applications and existing vocabularies. This drives another desired property for abstract vocabulary terms -- to mirror the semantics of existing education matadata vocabularies to the extent possible, so that explicit equivalences and refinements may be established, protecting existing investments in educational metadata made by publishers and curators of learning resources and by institutions to date.

• Liaise with search engines, learning resource publishers, communities, and repositories, and other potential distributors and consumers of education metadata (e.g., LMS vendors, National Learning Registry) to promote adoption and impact of the vocabulary.

• Explain the impact, value, and use cases of a common education metadata vocabulary to the general public, decision-, and policy-makers.

In order to ensure that LRMI hits a "sweet spot" of addressing real learning resource publishing practices, the requirements of search engines, and interoperability with existing education metadata (and hence achieves widespread adoption by publishers, repositories, and search and other application developers), we require the active engagement of experts in the field. Thus we are issuing this Call For Participation at two levels of commitment:

• Working Group: Participate in researching and writing LRMI vocabulary and expressions. Tentatively weekly teleconferences, two face to face meetings. Commitment averages 4hrs/week over 6-9 months.

• Advisory Group: Provide feedback on Working Group drafts and as requested. Possibility of participating in key teleconferences. Commitment averages 1hr/week over 6-9 months.

These are volunteer commitments. However, we do have funding for travel to face to face meetings if required.

LRMI's work will occur in public. One does not need to participate in the Working or Advisory groups to follow, comment on, and contribute to LRMI. All interested parties are encouraged to join the LRMI Google Group/mailing list at https://groups.google.com/group/lrmi/

Please direct interest in Working or Advisory group participation privately to ml@creativecommons.org, or if you wish, to the public mailing list.

We strongly encourage interest from around the world. Educational metadata efforts have historically arisen from various parts of the world, and improving discoverability and interoperability of learning resources is truly a worldwide challenge and opportunity.

Prospective timeline (2011-2012)

July 5:

publish CFP

July 26:

announce initial WG and AG

first WG teleconference

late August/September:

first WG F2F

request AG feedback on findings re existing education metadata vocabularies

September

publish findings on existing metadata vocabularies

request AG feedback on first rough draft of abstract vocabulary

October

publish first draft of abstract vocabulaary

request AG feedback on schema.org and RDF expression first rough draft

November

second draft of abstract vocabulary; release candidate pending bugs found in developing schema.org and RDF expressions

submit schema.org expression to first stage of to be determined schema.org process

work intensively with early adopters

December-January

finalize abstract vocabulary, schema.org and RDF expressions

finalize list of launch/1.0 publisher and application adopters

January-March

denote 1.0 of abstract vocabulary, schema.org and RDF expressions

launch with array of publisher and application adopters

March-ongoing

maintain and fix bugs

work to make adoption universal

pass on maintenance to established standards organization