[Foundation-l] IEEE LOM

[Gerard Meijssen]

wiki_tomos wrote:

>Hi. I find it rather odd that nobody so far seems to have responded to this 
>interesting proposal. So I am making a modest attempt. I have to admit that 
>I just ask questions & clarifications mostly, and I am not sure if others 
>have the same questions. 
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Gerard Meijssen 
>Sent: Sat, 04 Jun 2005 08:10:53 +0200
>Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] IEEE LOM
>
>
>  
>
>>>However if 50% of the Dutch data is of an universal nature, it would 
>>>mean that this 50% does not need to be entered for the articles in other languages. 
>>>Hosting this metadata on the Wikimedia servers makes sense; 
>>>      
>>>
>
>I think I want to learn more about this part. What do you mean by the universal data? 
>  
>
The Dutch implementation of IEEE LOM has Dutch localisation for the
international labels. When 50% of the data is the same on every article
independent of the localisation used, and when an article on the same
topic in different languages shares this metadata, you do not have to
enter those again. To make IEEE LOM available, you need to implement the
local standard next to the published standard.

>Some of the IEEE data are common to all Wikipedia (or Wikimedia) articles/pages so that 
>they do not have to be manually entered for individual articles/pages separately, but 
>could simply be implemented at a different level? 
>
>  
>
>>>it allows for the opening up of Free content in a proprietary world. 
>>>It would make a huge deduction in cost for every second language implementing the IEEE LOM data.
>>>      
>>>
>
>I want to know more about these statements, too. 
>
>What are some of the expected benefits of tagging the contents with IEEE LOM? Are you suggesting 
>many commercial content providers will take Wikipedia contents and offer them as part of their 
>contents? That sounds good to me (reuse of contents is good in principle in my opinion).
>  
>
Yes, that is what I suggest.

>I also wonder about how they will comply with GFDL that requires, among other things, that 
>contents should not be technically protected for people to read or copy, and that no other 
>terms than license will be applied. Well, that's their (those commercial content providers) 
>business to figuire things out, so perhaps the question is not very relevant to our discussion. 
>
>  
>
Making content accessible is what we do. Making people comply with our
license is a different matter. I learned that schools themselves often
ask organisations to rate info according to IEEE LOM. But once info HAS
been categorized according to this standard, our information will be
found for use. The issues re licensecompliance are not different for us
as it is for the commercial content providers, if anything the
commercial boys have more to lose.

>  
>
>>The questions I put to you are:
>>*   Are we willing to host open standard meta data for the educational world.
>>*   Are we willing to cooperate with organisations that are interested in implementing this data.
>>*   How will we manage such things; funds can be found to pay people doing this kind of work - can we consider this
>>
>>Thanks,
>> GerardM
>>    
>>
>
>Am I correct in assuming that what they want is that somehow we (Dutch Wikipedians, or Wikipedians 
>in general) will tag our contents in the way specified in IEEE LOM? And they will pay for the server and 
>traffic in return? Is that the deal they are proposing? 
>  
>
No, they want to host our content and tag the info. Us hosting the
content, will allow for sharing the "universal" IEEE LOM labels and this
in turn will lead to less effort in tagging our content for other
countries following the paths of interwiki links. This is what I propose
what we should do. Finding 100% funding is something that is relatively
easy to do certainly when the management of this IEEE LOM stuff is what
the rationale is.

>Immediate question that I have, in that case, is that:
>*Do they want to somehow host the Dutch Wikipedia only, on a separate server? 
>
>*Did they consider creating a mirror themselves, and do all the tagging by themselves? In that case, 
>for good or not, they perhaps need only a few experienced Wikipedians as advisors/consultants. Not 
>particularly an exciting choice, but could be quite sensible. 
>  
>
This will prevent the economies of scale. So it is cool when they do
this, it makes however more sense when this metadata is integrated
within our own systems.

Thanks,
GerardM

>Cheers, 
>
>Tomos
>