There are two broad trends that will make the job of collating web-based resources easier in the future: metadata and resource linking.
Metadata describes resources, that is, it is data about data. For example, a webpage may be marked up as containing ‘educational materials’. Plainly as resource and data volumes increase, the necessity for metadata markup will become more apparent. As more people provide metadata, hopefully the searching of the web for academic and educational materials will also become a great deal easier.
There is an increasing trend in Internet based resources for people to mark up metadata using the eXtensible Markup Language (XML)17. XML is a flexible language for writing your own HTML- like markup tags, unseen by the majority of users but present in the resources they describe. However, because of the inherent flexibility of XML, there are now several disparate initiatives to provide metadata standards covering the description of academic and educational resources.
The Dublin Core standard covers the metadata tagging of resources in very general terms suitable for most academic materials. While not an XML standard as such, it provides fields that can be turned into XML (‘author’, ‘description’, etc.). While Dublin Core is entirely suitable for research materials, the educational community need a more detailed set of metadata fields (‘audience education level’, ‘cost’, and ‘passwords’, for example). Because of this there have been a number of suggested XML-based alternatives. While a Dublin Core Educational group18 does exist, the initiative fast gaining acceptance as the standard is the IMS Global Learning Consortium’s educational metadata specifications19 (IMS were previously Instructional Management Systems).
17 http://www.w3.org/xml/ 18 http://dublincore.org/groups/education/ 19
http://www.imsglobal.org/ IMS is backed by the UK’s Joint Informations Systems Committee (JISC) and is so widely covered by the Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards (CETIS) as to be the de facto standard.
The IMS standards do not simply cover marking up course content. They also cover the linking of resources. For example, there are metadata standards for compiling course descriptions, content, and exams into a single resource and marking up student profiles for use with them. Their ultimate vision is to provide the means by which, for example, a student wanting a degree in geography with economics could have a bespoke course automatically made for them and downloaded to their PC without necessarily going through a traditional educational institution. If this vision seems distant, then it should be noted that most Virtual Learning Environments (like, for example, Leeds’ Nathan Boddington building20, Blackboard21 or Questionmark22) have the ability to package their materials up as IMS compliant resources. Plainly such advances will both advantage university departments wishing to ease the workloads on their staff and place them under considerable competitive stress. Initiatives to harvest IMS metadata resource descriptions for search databases and other types of storage are already underway as part of the Open Archives Initiative (OAI)23.
One of the most obvious difficulties with metadata, however, is that different people could mark up the same resource in different ways. How do you maintain consistent descriptions of what a resource is about and what it is? How do you describe a ‘lecture’: is there a difference between a lecture that includes practical exercises and a workshop containing some periods of spoken instruction? Such problems are being addressed by a project currently underway that has a much wider remit than simply searching for educational or research resources: the Semantic Web.
The Semantic Web24 was outlined by Tim Berners-Lee and his colleagues at the W3 Consortium (see, for example, Berners-Lee et al., 2001) as the ultimate extension and fruition of the web. It aims to provide a structure under which computers can search for, and use, information with an understanding of what it refers to. The current architecture for the project involves two main components, the Resource Description Framework (RDF)25 and the Web Ontology markup specifications26. The RDF
20 http://www.fldu.leeds.ac.uk/bodingtoncommon.html 21 http://www.blackboard.com/ 22 http://www.questionmark.com/ 23 http://www.openarchives.org/ 24 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/ 25 http://www.w3.org/rdf/
provides the necessary tags for saying which metadata standard you are using (thereby negating the need to choose IMS over Dublin Core – you can actually use both or either under the RDF), while the Web Ontology markup languages (which are still stabilizing) give developers a framework in which they can embed the context and meaning of their metadata. For example, it is possible to define what a lecture is, and how it relates to common terms. Users searching for a resource can then tell what your metadata term ‘lecture’ means and compare it with what others supply. Plainly a lecturer does not have to do this – such descriptions will be defined at a community or international level, and the resource provider will just have to link to the standard descriptions to make their resource available. The ultimate aim of the Semantic Web is not simply to make search results more relevant but to contextualise the knowledge on the web, leading the way for the acquisition of knowledge by language-based artificial intelligence systems.
Plainly these are complex specifications, and one would imagine few academics have time to develop resources, let alone make them available under a metadata standard for the uses of artificial intelligences. However, all of the above initiatives are backed by large corporate groups who intend to provide both resource development and distribution software, and resources of their own in direct competition with the academic sector over the coming decade/s. For this reason alone, Academia would do well to pay attention. The advantages for academics from these developments will hopefully be more flexibility in the audiences they reach, and an enhanced ability to find information and resources of use in their work.
26 http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/