Re: Alignment endorsement
65 views
Skip to first unread message
Greg Grossmeier
Oct 26, 2012, 1:59:25 PM10/26/12
to lr...@googlegroups.com
Hello Ross,
<quote name="Ross Higashi" date="2012-10-24" time="14:10:23 -0700">
> Hello. I'd appreciate if somebody could help clarify a little about the
> intent and function of the LRMI.
>
> Given that the selection of alignment claims is determined by the tagger,
> it stands to reason that a content creator doing self-tagging could: do a
> poor job of alignment, make overly strong claims about a weak activity, or
> even make fraudulent claims altogether.
Yep, people sometimes create bad/fraudulent metadata.
> Is it within the scope of LRMI to include metadata about the strength or
> credibility of an alignment claim, for example by allowing the tagger to
> designate organizations that might accredit or endorse the claim? Or does
> this task fall entirely on the shoulders of the recipient of the
> information, with LRMI simply being a neutral reference so that everyone
> can agree on *what* alignment is being claimed in the first place? Put
> another way, if evidence about the strength of a claim is to be included,
> should it be contained in a wrapper of some sort, or does it belong in the
> LRMI metadata itself?
That is outside of the scope of LRMI and Schema.org (the ontology within
which we are working).
However, there are tools/services already in use that can help address
this concern of yours, namely, the Learning Registry. Multiple
people/organizations could align a resource (ie: mark it up) and share
that alignment with the Learning Registry. Then you, as a searcher/user,
could limit or rank your search results based on who you trust
more/most.
Discrete small parts put together to make a magical whole is what we're
going for.
Best,
Greg
--
Greg Grossmeier
Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
<quote name="Ross Higashi" date="2012-10-24" time="14:10:23 -0700">
> Hello. I'd appreciate if somebody could help clarify a little about the
> intent and function of the LRMI.
>
> Given that the selection of alignment claims is determined by the tagger,
> it stands to reason that a content creator doing self-tagging could: do a
> poor job of alignment, make overly strong claims about a weak activity, or
> even make fraudulent claims altogether.
Yep, people sometimes create bad/fraudulent metadata.
> Is it within the scope of LRMI to include metadata about the strength or
> credibility of an alignment claim, for example by allowing the tagger to
> designate organizations that might accredit or endorse the claim? Or does
> this task fall entirely on the shoulders of the recipient of the
> information, with LRMI simply being a neutral reference so that everyone
> can agree on *what* alignment is being claimed in the first place? Put
> another way, if evidence about the strength of a claim is to be included,
> should it be contained in a wrapper of some sort, or does it belong in the
> LRMI metadata itself?
That is outside of the scope of LRMI and Schema.org (the ontology within
which we are working).
However, there are tools/services already in use that can help address
this concern of yours, namely, the Learning Registry. Multiple
people/organizations could align a resource (ie: mark it up) and share
that alignment with the Learning Registry. Then you, as a searcher/user,
could limit or rank your search results based on who you trust
more/most.
Discrete small parts put together to make a magical whole is what we're
going for.
Best,
Greg
--
Greg Grossmeier
Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
Tim Farquer
Oct 27, 2012, 7:02:44 PM10/27/12
to lr...@googlegroups.com
Tools within OER Commons and the Learning Registry Collector browser app are built to do exactly what Greg described. I am also hopeful someone will convert the criteria of the Equip Tri-State Rubrics into a Chrome browser app. That app would be very useful to the K-12 community as we look to ensure resources embody the full spirit of the Common Core.
Anyone currently developing such a tool?
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages