A panoramic view on metadata application profiles of the last decade

This paper describes a study developed with the goal to understand the panorama of the metadata Application Profiles (AP): (i) what AP have been developed so far; (ii) what type of institutions have developed these AP; (iii) what are the application domains of these AP; (iv) what are the Metadata Schemes (MS) used by these AP; (v) what application domains have been producing MS; (vi) what are the Syntax Encoding Schemes (SES) and the Vocabulary Encoding Schemes (VES) used by these AP; and finally (vii) if these AP have followed the Singapore Framework (SF). We found (i) 74 AP; (ii) the AP are mostly developed by the scientific community, (iii) the ‘Learning Objects’ domain is the most intensive producer; (iv) Dublin Core metadata vocabularies are the most used and are being used in all domains of application and IEEE LOM is the second most used but only inside the ‘Learning Objects’ application domain; (v) the most intensive producer of MS is the domain of ‘Libraries and Repositories’; (vi) 13 distinct SES and 90 distinct VES were used; (vi) five of the 74 AP found follow the SF.This work is sponsored by FEDER funds through the Competitivity Factors Operational Programme (COMPETE) and by National funds through Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) within the scope of the project: FCOMP01-0124-FFEDER-022674.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio

Comparing different metadata application profiles for agricultural learning repositories

Agricultural learning repositories can provide new opportunities for sharing, accessing, using and reusing learning resources online. Metadata plays a crucial role in such systems: apart from simply indexing resources, metadata makes it easier to discover a learning resource in a repository, as well as to decide about ways to use it for teaching or learning purposes. In the context of agricultural education and training, a variety of appropriate metadata standards may be selected, adapted and implemented for a learning repository. In this paper we introduce the concept of metadata for agricultural learning resources, and compare two particular cases: one application profile based on the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) and the other based on the IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM). The paper attempts to identify similarities and differences between the two case studies and to outline issues that have to be resolved in order to harmonize such efforts

Comparing Different Metadata Application Profiles for Agricultural Learning Repositories

Abstract. Agricultural learning repositories can provide new opportunities for sharing, accessing, using and reusing learning resources online. Metadata plays a crucial role in such systems: apart from simply indexing resources, metadata makes it easier to discover a learning resource in a repository, as well as to decide about ways to use it for teaching or learning purposes. In the context of agricultural education and training, a variety of appropriate metadata standards may be selected, adapted and implemented for a learning repository. In this paper we introduce the concept of metadata for agricultural learning resources, and compare two particular cases: one application profile based on the Dublin Core Metadata Element Set (DCMES) and the other based on the IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM). The paper attempts to identify similarities and differences between the two case studies and to outline issues that have to be resolved in order to harmonize such efforts