http://fm.ea-tel.eu/flashmedia/flashmeeting/fm13049_5a090c-13049 http://fm.ea-tel.eu/fm/memo.php?pwd=5a090c-13049 http://fm.ea-tel.eu/public remote participation for LTSC LOM meeting ieee lom ltsc metadata 0:13958:0 1:7621:0 7636:13816:0 7:8601:0 8660:13093:0 13183:13783:0 8:5535:0 7373:13775:0 15:13805:0 73:5889:0 6641:8641:1 8642:8652:0 8653:8797:1 8815:13145:1 13146:13177:0 13178:13794:1 131:13782:0 146:2883:0 2912:4215:0 255:693:0 719:13163:0 13191:13966:0 313:13801:0 374:591:0 593:5390:0 617:11121:0 11123:11427:0 11462:11570:0 11579:13153:1 13154:13172:0 13173:13914:1 719:4391:0 4409:8610:0 8988:13146:1 13147:13162:0 13163:13763:1 6608:13814:0 8741:13785:0 Audio seems to be working fine... That was ET speaking i will speak through the Waxahachie connection slides are at http://www.slideshare.net/erik.duval/lom-in-waxahachie/ I dont have audio on my computer. I will use Waxahachie Is slideshare the recommended presentation method? It's ok I will be speaking through Waxahachie also understand don will speak via waxahahchie The volume from Waxahachie was rather low... jack votes yes I agree with the proposed resolution fannie is on the move She has now voted... the only difference is that Issue 14 suggests LangString instead of CharacterString Agree that the vocabs can be extended but this could put many FireFox vocabs in many different namespaces audio in waxahachie is very low I cannot listen either yes I don't know Would this be a problem having multilple values in multiple value spaces/namespaces I agree with Robby The problem with opening to a characterstring is different representations of the same value (FIREFOX, fireFox, Mozilla Firefox) agree with Shawn that charstring is a bad idea... clearing now btw I dont use firefox ;-) http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp This is a broader issues than just this element Jeroen: no sound! No sound here either I dont see the interoperability problem. All existing instances without firefox will work just fine, and all new instances with firefox will be no problem - old applications can treat as they would an extension. Yes, but what do I do (as an application provider) when I get 1000 variations of Firefox in that field There are no variations if we add the firefox to the vocabulary btw, can you all clear your votes? We should focus on changing the mechanism for extending vocabularies in better machine readable way, apart from the LOM standard itself. Therefor it should not be added now in the corrigenda, but dealt with in LOM next Agree ... if some implementions use a "Case if"statement, adding vocaulary can cause problems, and reality is that there are poor implementions! I agree with Jeroen not a corrigenda issue Agree with Mikael. Yes, I agree with Mikael I agree Me too ;-) sounds good to me we need this for LOM Next This horse is dead :) I believe SPMs need to stay. So, I don't agree with proposed changes ignore I think SPMs should be removed, but not now. Just to make sure: this is about the re-affirmation, not the corrigenda :-) i agree with Mikael I agree I see no problem with SPM as a concept. It is needed now but may be overtaken by technology. Waxahachie consensus is to look at this in LOM Next, including explanations. maybe remove it from the table and put in text below, that way its less prominent I need to slip away for an hour or so. See you later. http://ariadne.cs.kuleuven.be/mediawiki/index.php/User:Rjgodoy/LCRC-reloaded no comments from me potential issue with issue 17 low sound :( can you speak a bit louder? MUCH better good now yes yes Example: BEGIN:VCARD
VERSION:3.0
&#10 etc.... I like Schawn's example scott lewis can help also scott said you can count on him Will get back to you I will apply the changes to http://ariadne.cs.kuleuven.be/mediawiki/index.php?title=LOM_v1.0_Corrigenda meanwhile ye haw thanks erik WE WILL RECONVENE ON THE TOP OF THE HOUR... anyone there? I'm here but like you guys I went to make tea I'm here too, just drinking mate ;-) Hi Javier some of us in Waxahachie are back thanks erik Texas indeed ty :-) Flash things I have a camera that I don't audio is fine! http://www.slideshare.net/m94mni/lom-dcam-presentation-for-lom-meeting-20080423/ opened fine! Both PAR's were actually only approved on 27 March 2008, but that doesn't matter all that much... thanks http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/DCMIIEEELTSCTaskforce Very low sound! cant hear erik - could you repeat what was said please ? http://www.ieeeltsc.org/working-groups/wg12LOM/jointtf/ is the current link from the LOM WG to the taskfrce wiki There is a link to this work on the wg12 page at http://www.ieeeltsc.org/working-groups/wg12LOM http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/DCMIIEEELTSCTaskforce/LomDCAMAnalysis http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/DCMIIEEELTSCTaskforce/LomTerms The mailing list is apears to be a JISC mailing list. Nothing against JISC, but its not an LTSC mailing list or a DC mailing list. Is there a way to keep these activities associated with the organizations that are sponsoring them? http://dublincore.org/educationwiki/DCMIIEEELTSCTaskforce/Examples On all these documents there is no link to LTSC. And why are they no hosted by the LTSC ? LTSC people are not aware of what is done in this Task Force. could the mails be mirrored to an LTSC list maybe ? pleased repeat last 3 minutes we are thinking all LTSC activity and mailing lists are performed at one site I am on the LOM list since more than 2 years oterwise I could not be able to participate in the corrigenda calls Last mail on the LTSC-LOM list was Tue, 7 Mar 2006 sorry I missed the last 3 minutes - was a people interruption here. No need to repeat it Again, VERY willing to implement concrete suggestions on how to improve visibility and communication! good Eric. concrete suggestions forthcoming the flash meetings are great for working because so easy remotely Right http://flashmeeting.open.ac.uk/public/key/lom http://www.slideshare.net/erik.duval/lom-in-waxahachie/ Some of the characteristcs of snippets, their source, plus trust can be labeled as "provenance" development of standards points toward a certain process or technology that becomes a technology trend and has reached a degree of marketability that requires a need for particular consensus-based agreements. so we need problems and user requirements. maybe it's not so much a question of problems coming up, but chances we should grab. Education and probably other domains can certainly use other objects described in other domains. therefor using other metadata Jeroen I agree yes indeed: like geo tagging How much of the assumptions and requriements that went into LOM (or other current metadata standards) have changed since? I think this leads to the point in the breifing around describing for repositories vs. resource or web-centric I agree with Mikael on this I think it should be investigated, because there is a lot to gain, but maybe it doesn't need to be under the LOM flag. Do we have a bigger flag... like DC or ISO metadata... I believe that the fundamentals and foundation of which LOM and other metadata standards have passed us by The discussion here is focused on understanding what problem needs solution and what assumptions should be made: Schawn's comment is that these have changed, not just for us but also for DC, ISO efforts, and other metadata groups. is this it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7296056.stm http://www.ysearchblog.com/archives/000527.html sound is low! "For starters, we plan to support vocabulary components from Dublin Core, Creative Commons, FOAF, GeoRSS, MediaRSS, and others based on feedback. And, we will support RDFa and eRDF markup to embed these into existing HTML pages" Accessibility is one Dan ? Good point Mikael you broke up on our end Eirk I believe education will also remain in need of controlled vocabularies besides the social-network-controlled tagging, for instance for competencies Yes, reasonable conclusion. Sounds fine! preceeding SC36 would be better than after it I agree with Andy, except I think it should follow the SC36 (Sat and Sun) we would like to have next face to face that has compliment of vendors can attend fair enough thankyou everyone over there Thanks! Bye thank you erik, everyone. thank all, I hope to sort of be in a f2f meeting next time again we are waving good by thanks, time to go tagging thank you bye bye base schema*** (despite of the XML binding)