I received an email Duval, who asks me the reason for my position strongly critical of the LOM (Learning Object Metadata) about his involvement EDEN in the conference (Naples) and clarifies his "vision" on the grounds that "The point I tried to make LOM That Should Be Rather is more hidden from end users. Metadata Remain More Than Ever though that is crucial to enable sophisticated Functionalities." (See previous post).
I do not think this is the point. Metadata someone, but they will enter. The problem is that the end user has no desire to enter 80 fields for each LO spedifiche and often does not agree or do not understand the classification.
If we insert an "expert" or a librarian also runs the risk of getting a categorization is completely arbitrary because the library is * not * and the user is unable to interpret contexts of use are expressed with appropriate keywords. The solution probably lies in a judicious use of a folksonomy accompanied by a basic standard of metadata (Dublin core ones are fine, for example).
What is difficult to enter and use the LOM is also convinced him I am sure, even if you think still the main problem is only in the "boredom" fill in the fields:
June 1st, 2007
http://ariadne.cs.kuleuven.be/wordpress/eduval/?p=200
"One of Our lessons in this category, to "lead by example" Personally I tried for many years to convince people to Contribute Extensive Amounts of metadata, in order to describe Their resources. Actually I was kind Sometimes of successful: people did enter the metadata in the electronic forms we provided. But the problem was that this success was always short-lived: after a few weeks, they would revert back to not entering anything beyond the very basic title and maybe the author information. After a long time and much resistance, I concluded that “electronic forms must die” and that we need to find other ways to collect the metadata.That was a very tedious process, but it did lead to our quite successful work on automatic metadata generation." [Duval]
in realtà il problema sta sopratutto a monte, proprio nell'atto di stabilire una classificazione adeguata per un oggetto: le keywords scelte sono infatti idiosincratiche e rispecchiano i contesti d'uso and semantic features of a community.
Not to mention the issue of intentionality: if you're lost in the sun Jaguar Australia and search for "shadow" this is a tag that you would like stuck to the definition of "tree", while if you want something to burn, there is likely to warm in mind the tag "wood" ... it could also happen to be hungry and find a strange animal called Platypus: Unfortunately, you're picky and do not eat meat mammal. Ask your friend Aboriginal and tells you that the strange animal feeding children, but lays eggs, has a duck-billed but the peole beaver .... unfortunately the satellite connection to the Internet does not work and your doubt about the taxonomy of scienze naturali dovrà rimanere irrisolto fino a che tornate in città. Intanto però non riuscite a staccare gli occhi dalla povera bestiola che sta arrostendo sul fuoco prontamente acceso dall'aborigeno e da cui si sprigiona un profumino delizioso...
...potreste anche decidere che il tag più adatto adesso è senz'altro la parola... "cibo".
0 comments:
Post a Comment