Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

Meeting Information



August 7, 2013


8 PDT/9 MDT/10 CDT/11 EDT/16 BST/17 CEST/18 EEST

Attending: Dawn Carroll, Erik Emde, Daniela Giordano, Sarah Hunt, Valerie Smothers,

Agenda Items

1 Review minutes of last call

The minutes were approved.

2 Review modifications to specification and schema

Valerie walked through the changes to the specification. Specialty was changed to disciplineOrSpecialty in accordance with the decision made on the previous call. We added source and id attributes to profession to support referencing standardized vocabularies and update the recommended vocabulary of professions in Appendix 2. We revised credit related elements to reflect changes in CE accreditation and update taking into account VA needs. We added an element for link to license, repurposing elements, and bibliographic citation element.

Daniela commented that sematically reflects what we discussed.

The Accrediting bodies on page 33 are based on VA accreditation. Dawn commented that looks good.

Valerie reviewed the placement of the repurposing elements. The way the specification is currently drafted, they would go in the lom relations element. Daniela agreed that was appropriate.

3 Continue reviewing proposed modifications

The group discussed the proposed modification of adding a quality element for a formal quality stamp.  Daniela commented that this was originally conceived of as a container by mEducator. They were generic in defining it. MedEdPortal’s peer review  could be represented there. In practice, mEducator didn’t use it much. In principle, there is a need. Something regarding process would be useful.

Dawn commented that quality has not come up for the VA.

Erik added it has not come up at the CDC. Their content doesn’t get published until it is peer reviewed.

Daniela commented you could use social web style of quality ratings.  They collect user feedback about the resource. That should be condensed in metadata. Quality is meant to be more official. There could be a quality element with a uri to a page explaining what the quality indicator is. It could be a link to a page describing the peer review for that collection.

The group agreed to add it.

The group then discussed the proposed addition of teachingLearningInstructions. Daniela explained that is for the creator to share how a resource may be used in a teaching or learning context, the pedagical practices. The group agreed to add that.

The group discussed the proposed addition of technicalDescription. Valerie asked if those using lom were using the technical fields. Erik replied the CDC does not. There is no way for users to use that metadata; it has to be in the content itself.

Dawn asked if the proposed addition is a description of technical issues or resource. Daniela commented it may be technical requirements and other issues pertaining to the resource. Daniela explained that often users had to install specific software.

Dawn commented that there is an existing element in lom that would address that need – OtherPlatformRequirement. There is also a field called installationRemarks.  The group agreed to omit technicalDescription given the existing elements addressing this requirement.

MediaType was the next proposal the group discussed.  Daniela commented they had an organized taxonomy of values for the element. The element can repeat to allow for multiple values and vocabularies. There may be primary media, multimedia, web media package, etc. Their rationale was that they wanted to support designers to find elements that could be usable to repurpose. Was important to state, no matter how complex, can find elementary components, like text, multimedia. Or we could classify multimedia more complex organization..  You can have multimedia system, social interaction etc. She agreed to send the vocabulary.

Dawn commented she would love to see the vocabulary. They are doing something a little different.

The group discussed the proposal for Originating system. Dawn commented that the VA is already using something like this. She agreed to send an example of what they are doing to convey that data.

Daniela commented they have a type defined for specifying that. 

4 Further information on LRMI

Valerie commented that she has been discussing LRMI with the MedBiquitous Standards Committee. She reviewed LRMI is a metadata initative that provides a format for embedding the metadata in the html page for search engine consumption. LRMI is associated with, a collaboration between Google, Bing, and yahoo. To date there has been no adoption by major search engines.

Daniela commented that she had a look and saw nothing reflecting adoption. She added it is an intermediate step to move to semantic web, which uses rdf description.  The goal is similar. One way to approach is lrmi. The other is semantics. 

5 Open discussion



The group agreed to add the following elements:

  • quality
  • teachingLearningInstructions

The group agreed to omit technicalDescription.

Action Items

  • Daniela will send the vocabulary for mediaType
  • Dawn will send an example of how they are indicating originating system
  • Valerie will incorporate the group’s decisions into the specification
  • No labels