--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
It shouldn't be a problem to standardize. CEDS has the standard vocabulary and an 'at rest' model that is similar to ASN and using the same elements as SIF 3.0 xml binding. Most important is making the process easy for standards publishers to push the information to LR...this might need to provide a different/additional entry point than how LR typically works, e.g. spreadsheet upload by an authorized publisher. I'll plan to post some ideas next week about how I think this could work.
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/learning-registry-collaborate/IaMLiVz2TVE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com.
What about SIF LearnignStandardItem and LearnignStandardDoc?
Joshua Marks
CTO
Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community
US 831-685-3511
I welcome you to become a member of the Curriki community, to follow us on Twitter and to say hello on our blog, Facebook and LinkedIn communities.
Stuart,
I agree that the ASN framework can act as a binding and ASN as an entry point. I recognize the value in what ASN has provided. My thought is that the distributed model of LR can preserve the information beyond the sustainability of any one node, protecting against any single point of failure.
What I have in mind would be simpler than 'an authoring space to create data representations of their frameworks'. States and professional organizations might not have someone to build RDF representations , but they often already have spreadsheets containing the frameworks. RDF could be a transitional form, but we can reduce friction if the agency rep can simply upload a spreadsheet. ...I'm interested in your thoughts on this kind of approach (via ASN?) as a gateway to into LR.
Jim
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/learning-registry-collaborate/IaMLiVz2TVE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com.
Joshua,
Yes, I mentioned SIF in my previous post. I don't know enough about LR technical details, but as I understand it, LR is flexible about how the metadata package is returned for a resource, eg as a JSON object, RDF/XML, SIF XML. It comes down to data objects and attributes...we have compatible terms, no problem. Could be a translation service between these, or the recipient knows what to expect and can parse into what is needed? How is it generally done with LRMI terms in LR?
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the Google Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/learning-registry-collaborate/IaMLiVz2TVE/unsubscribe.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com.