Metadata Standards for Open Educational Resources

Abstract

One of the most important components of an e-learning system is the learning material. The widespread adoption of e-learning has led to the development of many learning object repositories that store high quality learning materials specifically created for e-learning. Resource discovery of learning materials can be made effective by semantically tagging them with standard metadata. This paper highlight the use of metadata in e-learning systems with a review of the most widely used metadata standards for Open Educational Resources.

Full text

59th ILA International Conference on Managing Libraries in the Changing
Information World, IIT Roorkee
2014
691
METADATA STANDARDS FOR OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES
Manu C.1 and Mohamed Haneefa K.2
1 Research Scholar, University of Calicut, Kerala, E- mail: cvmanu@gmail.com
2Assistant Professor, Department of Library & Information Science, University of Calicut,
Kerala, E-mail: dr.haneefa@gmail.com
Abstract
One of the most important components of an e-learning system is the learning material.
The widespread adoption of e-learning has led to the development of many learning object
repositories that store high quality learning materials specifically created for e-learning.
Resource discovery of learning materials can be made effective by semantically tagging
them with standard metadata. This paper highlight the use of metadata in e-learning
systems with a review of the most widely used metadata standards for Open Educational
Resources.
Keywords: Metadata Standards, Open Educational Resources, Learning Objects, E-
learning, Learning Resource Metadata Initiative, Dublin Core, IEE LOM
1. Introduction
E-learning has emerged as an important learning platform to facilitate and enhance the
process of learning through the application of Information and Communication
Technologies. Online learning object repositories are the major resources for e - learning.
The most important component of any e-learning system is the learning object. Learning
Object repositories store and provide access to quality learning materials which are
specifically created for e-learning.
An e-learning system should ensure the maximum use of these learning objects through
efficient retrieval mechanisms. To increase the visibility of learning objects it should be
properly tagged with a set of metadata which describes educational artifacts such as the
subject content, intended user group etc. Metadata is fundamental to effective retrieval and
use of digital materials, as well as the organization, preservation, and management of
those materials in the digital environment. To fulfill the above purposes different types of
metadata can be used. Descriptive metadata can be used for describing or identifying
information resources. Structural metadata documents relationships among objects.
Administrative metadata provides information to help manage a resource and “Use
metadata” tracks the level and type of use of information resources (Gilliland, 1998).
However, sharing and reuse of learning objects across various repositories or learning
management systems can be achieved only by using a common metadata standard for

59th ILA International Conference on Managing Libraries in the Changing
Information World, IIT Roorkee
2014
692
describing the learning object. For the description of learning objects there are several
metadata standards available and the selection of an ideal metadata standard is very
important for ensuring maximum visibility and interoperability between learning object
repositories. Use of metadata standards, automatic metadata generation, staff capacities
and interoperability are some important areas of research related to metadata and
metadata management.
2. Open Educational Resources
In 2002, UNESCO convened a group of academics to study impact of the
OpenCourseWare initiative of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) on higher
education institutions in developing countries. The forum coined the term ‘Open
Educational Resources (OER)’ and they defined it as “The open provision of educational
resources, enabled by information and communication technologies, for consultation, use
and adaptation by a community of users for noncommercial purposes” (UNESCO, 2002).
In its simplest form, the concept of Open Educational Resources describes any
educational resources (including curriculum maps, course materials, textbooks, streaming
videos, multimedia applications, podcasts, and any other materials that have been
designed for use in teaching and learning) that are openly available for use by educators
and students, without an accompanying need to pay royalties or license fees (Butcher,
2011).
The major difference between OER and any other educational resource is its license.
Thus, an OER is simply an educational resource that incorporates a license that facilitates
reuse, and potentially adaptation, without permission from the copyright holder.
3. Importance of Metadata in E-Learning Systems
ALCTS (Association for Library Collections and Technical Services) Task Force on
Metadata (2000) defines metadata as “structured, encoded data that describe
characteristics of information-bearing entities to aid in the identification, discovery,
assessment, and management of the described entities”. Moreover metadata is also a
tool for the management of information resources, whether they are electronic and
available on the Internet or in physical format; metadata enables the management of the
lifecycle wherein the resources are created, modified and used.
One of the requirements for a federated information system is interoperability, the ability of
one computer system to access and use the resources of another system (Komatsoulis,
2008). The interoperability between e-learning systems will ensure wider reach of the

59th ILA International Conference on Managing Libraries in the Changing
Information World, IIT Roorkee
2014
693
learning objects to the intended users. Properly provided metadata can act as a key to
interoperability (Haynes, D, 2004).
Similar to traditional cataloging and indexing, metadata performs three main functions. It
supports resource discovery, locates the specific resource by inclusion of a digital
identifier, and organizes electronic resources into collections bringing similar resources
together and distinguishing dissimilar resources. In addition it provides information needed
to administer and manage the collection. Technical metadata is needed to allow digital
objects to be re-presented in new technical environments.
A metadata scheme has three components – semantics, content and syntax. An extension
adds elements to an existing scheme to describe a particular resource type, handle
material on a particular subject, or address the needs of a particular user community.
Profiles are subsets of a larger scheme that are implemented by a particular user
community. Metadata can be embedded in an electronic resource or stored in a separate
file.
4. Important Educational Metadata Standards
Metadata standard is the set of metadata elements and rules for their use that have been
defined for a particular purpose. In common usage, the terms scheme, schema and
standard are used interchangeably. A metadata scheme is the set of descriptor types
available to be applied to information. Numerous standard schemes have been developed
to address specific information use and management needs. These standards have
emerged from the needs of specific interest groups to standardize how they classify
information. Many different metadata schemes are being developed in a variety of user
environments and disciplines.
Several educational metadata standards have been proposed over time in order to better
describe learning objects. A widely adopted metadata element set for this purpose is IEEE
Learning Object Metadata (LOM), a standard which has been designed especially for the
description of educational resources. Apart from LOM, other well known metadata
standards designed to be used in the field of education are IMS and Dublin Core. The
latest entrant in this category is the Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI) which is
an extension of the Schema.org.
It is observed that, in practical scenarios a single metadata schema may not be adequate
for efficiently describing learning objects. In order to overcome this problem, the use of
“Application Profiles” is proposed. According to Rachel Heery and Manjula Patel (2000)

59th ILA International Conference on Managing Libraries in the Changing
Information World, IIT Roorkee
2014
694
application profiles consist of data elements drawn from one or more namespace schemas
combined together by implementors and optimised for a particular local application.
Application profiles are useful as they allow the implementor to declare how they are using
standard schemas. The goal is to efficiently fulfill the application's special needs and to
retain interoperability with its base schema. Therefore, applications that utilize application
profiles can benefit by exploiting the features of an existing schema and by enriching them
with desired characteristics. Some popular application profiles are CanCore and Sharable
Content Object Reference Model (SCORM).
4.1 The IEEE Learning Object Metadata
The IEEE 1484.12.1 – 2002 Standard for Learning Object Metadata is an internationally
recognised open standard published by the IEEE Learning Technology Standard
Committee (IEEE LTSC) for the description of learning objects. IEEE 1484.12.1 is the first
part of a multipart standard, and describes the LOM data model. The LOM data model
specifies which aspects of a learning object should be described and what vocabularies
may be used for these descriptions; it also defines how this data model can be amended
by additions or constraints.
For this standard, a metadata instance for a learning object describes relevant
characteristics of the learning object to which it applies. The conceptual data schema
specified in this part permits linguistic diversity of both learning objects and the metadata
instances that describe them. This conceptual data schema specifies the data elements
which compose a metadata instance for a learning object.
The LOM defines the minimal set of attributes to manage, locate and evaluate learning
objects. These attributes or Data Elements are grouped in to nine categories:
1. General category groups the general information that describes the learning
object as a whole.
2. Lifecycle category groups the features related to the history and current state
of this learning object and those who have affected this learning object during its
evolution.
3. Meta-Metadata category groups information about the metadata instance itself
(rather than the learning object that the metadata instance describes).
4. Technical category groups the technical requirements and technical
characteristics of the learning object.
5. Educational category groups the educational and pedagogic characteristics of
the learning object.

59th ILA International Conference on Managing Libraries in the Changing
Information World, IIT Roorkee
2014
695
6. Rights category groups the intellectual property rights and conditions of use for
the learning object.
7. Relation category groups features that define the relationship between the
learning object and other related learning objects.
8. Annotation category provides comments on the educational use of the learning
object and provides information on when and by whom the comments were
created.
9. Classification category describes this learning object in relation to a particular
classification system
Within each category is a hierarchy of data elements to which the metadata values are
assigned. Examples of learning-related metadata elements found in the Education
category are Typical Age Range (of the intended user), Difficulty, Typical Learning Time,
and Interactivity Level.
IEEE 1484.12.3 - 2005 Standard for eXtensible Markup Language (XML) Schema Binding
for Learning Object Metadata Data Model defines how LOM records should be
represented in XML; it does so not by providing a single XML Schema but by providing
several options which can be tailored to particular application profiles of the data model.
4. 2 IMS Metadata
The IMS Global Learning Consortium (http://www.imsglobal.org/) develops and promotes
the adoption of open technical specifications for inter operable learning technology. Their
Meta-Data Information Model Specification is based on the IEEE LOM scheme with only
minor modifications. The latest version of the IMS Learning Resource Meta-Data
specification (Version 1.3) adopts the IEEE data model and XML binding, and provides
best practice guidelines for their use. These guidelines allow the software developers and
the implementers to create instructional materials that are inter operable across authoring
tools, learning management systems, and run time environments.
4. 3 Dublin Core
The Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (http://dublincore.org/) is an open forum engaged in
the development of interoperable online metadata standards that supports a broad range
of purposes and business models. The Dublin Core standard includes two levels: Simple
and Qualified. The simple Dublin Core contains fifteen elements. The elements are Title,
Subject, Description, Type, Source, Relation, Coverage, Creator, Publisher, Contributor,
Rights, Date, Format, Identifier and Language. The qualified Dublin Core includes three
additional elements Audience, Provenance and RightsHolder, as well as a group of

59th ILA International Conference on Managing Libraries in the Changing
Information World, IIT Roorkee
2014
696
element refinements (also called qualifiers) that refine the semantics of the elements in a
way that may be useful in resource discovery.
The Dublin Core metadata contains metadata elements useful for general purpose
applications but it does not contain attributes describing the pedagogical perspective of a
document. In order to cope with educational concerns, DC-Education Application Profile
has been proposed.
The DC Education Working Group has proposed a schema for describing educational
resources. Along with that a joint DCMI/IEEE LTSC Task Force was also constituted. The
recommendation of the DC Education Working Group suggests a schema incorporating:-
 Various standard DC elements and recommended qualifiers
 DC Education ‘namespace’ (domain specific) extensions such as
DCEducation Element: audience
DCEducation Audience qualifier: mediator
DCEducation Element: standard
DCEducation Standard qualifier: identifier
DCEducation Standard qualifier: version
DCEducation Relation qualifier: conforms to
 Various IEEE Learning Object Metadata (LOM) elements such as
InteractivityType
InteractivityLevel
TypicalLearningTime
We can see from this schema extract that it consists of DC ‘standard’ elements, domain
specific additions to recommended standard DC elements, and particular elements from
name spaces such as IEEE LOM.
4.4 Learning Resource Metadata Initiative
In June 2011, major search engines Bing, Google, and Yahoo (later joined by Yandex)
formed Schema.org to create a standard method of tagging webpages across the Internet
with descriptive and semantic metadata, sometimes called microdata. The goal is to create
a standardized schema for webmasters to use for markup to ensure the maximum benefit
for their efforts and to aid users who utilize these tags in online search queries. On - page
markup helps search engines understand the information on web pages and provide richer
search results. A shared markup vocabulary makes easier for webmasters to decide on a
markup schema and get the maximum benefit for their efforts. Search engines want to
make it easier for people to find relevant information on the web. Markup can also enable

59th ILA International Conference on Managing Libraries in the Changing
Information World, IIT Roorkee
2014
697
new tools and applications that make use of the structure.
The Learning Resource Metadata Initiative (LRMI) is a project led by Creative Commons
(CC) and the Association of Educational Publishers (AEP) to establish a common
vocabulary for describing learning resources. The project has developed a standard
metadata framework for tagging learning resources online. The vocabulary is the first
independently developed industry-specific framework addressing education that is
designed to work with schema.org, thereby improving the practical search and discovery of
learning resources online. A common framework for tagging and organizing learning
resources will increase the interoperability and transparency of OER repositories.
LRMI Specification
The LRMI specification is a collection of properties to describe educational resources. It
builds on the extensive vocabulary provided by Schema.org, and predominantly,
Schema.org/CreativeWork and the LRMI-created Educational Audience. Version 1.1 of the
LRMI specification has been accepted into Schema.org with the exception of useRightsUrl.
Different properties of learning resources as defined by the LRMI specification Version 1.1
is shown in the Table 1.
Schema.org already defines the metadata schema for basic information about material on
the Web, such as a “Creative Work” in the form of a “Book,” which has metadata like
author, publisher, datePublished, etc. It also defines specific metadata for types like Article,
ImageObject, AudioObject, VideoObject, and so forth. LRMI identified five properties that
are already covered by schema.org which are relevant to learning objects. The properties
already defined by schema.org and identified by LRMI as relevant to learning objects are
shown in the Table 2.
LRMI extends the work being done by Schema.org that aims to standardize website
markup in general. LRMI can become the de facto standard for tagging educational
content online, it’s what the search engines will look for when they crawl the web for
learning resources.

59th ILA International Conference on Managing Libraries in the Changing
Information World, IIT Roorkee
2014
698
Table 1
LRMI specification - Version 1.1
Property
Expected
Type
Description
educationalRole schema.org/Text
The role that describes the target
audience of the content.
educationalAlignment
schema.org/Align
mentObject
An alignment to an established
educational framework.
educationalUse schema.org/Text
The purpose of the work in the
context of education. Eg:
“assignment” , “group work”
timeRequired
schema.org/
Duration (ISO
8601)
Approximate or typical time it
takes to work with or through this
learning resource for the typical
intended target audience. Eg:
“P30M” , “P1H25M”
typicalAgeRange
schema.org/Text
The typical range of ages the
content’s intended end
user. Eg:
“7-9″ , “18-”
interactivityType
schema.org/Text
The predominant mode of
learning supported by the
learning resource. Acceptable
values are active, expositive, or
mixed. Eg: “active” , “mixed”
learningResourceType
schema.org/Text The predo
minant type or kind
characterizing the learning
resource. Eg : “presentation” ,
“handout”
useRightsURL
schema.org/URL
The URL where the owner
specifies permissions for using
the resource.
Eg:“http://creativecommons.org/li
censes/by/3.0/“
isBasedOnURL
schema.org/URL
A resource that was used in the
creation of this resource. This
term can be repeated for multiple
sources.
Name schema.org/Text The title of the resource.

59th ILA International Conference on Managing Libraries in the Changing
Information World, IIT Roorkee
2014
699
Table 2
Properties of learning resource that are currently covered by Schema.org
Property
Expected
Type
Description
Name schema.org/Text The title of the resource.
About schema.org/Text The subject of the content.
dateCreated schema.org/Date
The date on which the resource
was created.
author schema.org/
Person The individual credi
ted with the
creation of the resource.
publisher schema.org/
Organization
The organization credited with
publishing the resource.
inLanguage schema.org/
Language
The primary language of the
resource.
5. Conclusion
The development and adoption of new xml schema based metadata standards shows the
influence that search engines, like Google, have in making open educational resources
discoverable. In this new scenario it becomes the responsibility of the individual and the
institution to ensure the OERs they create are appropriately described and that metadata
is optimised for search and retrieval. The better an OER is tagged with proper metadata
the more it reaches to the intended audience.
The development of Linked Data technologies based on RDF (Resource Description
Framework) specifications has also made its impact on the way in which educational
resources are described for the semantic web. Dublin Core vocabularies have been
represented in an RDF Schema and hence Dublin core continues as an important
metadata standard for describing educational resources.
As all the major search engines are using schema.org for semantic indexing and LRMI
specification is accepted into Schema.org it seems that LRMI will soon become the de
facto metadata standard for Open Educational Resources. As search engines begin using
the LRMI specification and as a critical mass of educational content is tagged in a
consistent manner, filtering this content will become substantially easier, allowing
educators, students, and others to find relevant educational resources.

59th ILA International Conference on Managing Libraries in the Changing
Information World, IIT Roorkee
2014
700
References
Cancore Metadata Initiative. Retrieved from http://cancore.athabascau.ca/en/
DCMI education community. Retrieved from http://dublincore.org/groups/education/
Gilliland-Swetland, A. J. (2000). Setting the stage. Introduction to metadata: Pathways to
digital information, 1-12.
Haynes. D. (2004 ). Metadata: For Information Management and Retrieval (Become an
Expert), London: Facet.
Heery, R., & Patel, M. (2000). Application profiles: mixing and matching metadata
schemas. Ariadne, 25, 27-31.
IMS Learning Resource Meta-data Information Model. Retrieved from
http://www.imsglobal.org/ metadata/
Kanwar, A., Uvalic-Trumbic, S., & Butcher, N. (2011). A basic guide to open educational
resources (OER). Vancouver: Commonwealth of Learning; Paris: UNESCO.
Komatsoulis, G. A., Warzel, D. B., Hartel, F. W., Shanbhag, K., Chilukuri, R., Fragoso, G.,
... & Covitz, P. A. (2008). caCORE version 3: Implementation of a model driven,
service-oriented architecture for semantic interoperability. Journal of biomedical
informatics, 41(1), 106-123.
LRMI specification version 1.1. Retrieved from http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification.
Schema.org FAQ. Retrieved from http://schema.org/docs/faq.html.
Sharable Content Object Reference Model (SCORM). Retrieved from
http://www.adlnet.org/scorm/
Task Force on Metadata Final Report (2000). Available at http://www.libraries.psu.edu/tas
/jca/ccda.old/tf-meta6.html
UNESCO (2002). Forum on the impact of Open Courseware for higher education in
developing countries final report. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0012/
001285/128515e.pdf