Defines the metadata focus in the DLESE Strand Map Service.
Project purpose
Develop and evaluate a service that uses the AAAS strand maps to provide an
interactive interface to educational resources in NSDL. This service will enable
educators and learners to:
Discover educational resources that support learning goals or benchmarks,
articulated in the strand maps.
Browse the interconnected learning goals of the strand maps
Enhance their own content knowledge by using the service to explore important
background information on the learning goals, such as prior research on student
misconceptions
Metadata focus of the project
In order to provide services to NSDL, information is exchanged via XML and
generally as metadata records. So the metadata focus of this project is to:
Create a metadata framework to facilitate the cataloging of strand map concepts
Define and develop vocabularies and relationships to support the framework
and cataloging
Catalog strand map concepts, brief descriptions and longer descriptions
Connect this collection of metadata to learning objects (e.g. how do you
connect a benchmark record to an ADN item-level metadata record?)
Metadata development questions
To create a metadata framework, answers to fundamental design questions need
to be gathered and understood by interested parties:
What are the objects to be cataloged?
How are the objects to be defined (definition of the object and granularity)?
Are there different types of object? If so, then each needs a definition
and an understanding of its granularity and desired information.
If cataloging more than one object type, what are the differences and similarities
between the types? Can the metadata framework be designed to use common fields
across different object types?
Do the objects need to connect to other external objects or services? If
so how? Do these hooks need to be designed in at this time?
Notes to understanding the strand maps
Every box (white and blue) is to be considered as a benchmark now
The original source for every benchmark in the boxes may be different. The
boxes contain the following:
original benchmarks (text in full from the Benchmarks book)
partial benchmarks (text from the Benchmarks book)
completely new benchmarks (text that came from either other AAAS books
(e.g. Science for All Americans) or was developed specifically for the
map (see e.g. on page 53 of the Atlas)
Edges of strands are fuzzy. That is not every benchmark will belong to a
strand (e.g. in the Atlas pg. 79 the box 'An important....' is not part of
any strand)
The vertical or horizontal placement of a box may or may not be significant.
Emphasis should be placed on connections between benchmarks rather than
the connection of benchmarks to strands
It is not obvious (but about 75% of the time you can guess correctly though)
which benchmarks on a map belong to which strand
The narrative part of each map is not appropriate to be its own collection
object. Rather associate the narrative with objects in the collection, maps
being the easiest while benchmarks are harder and more subjective to associate.
SMS collection objects
Benchmarks knowledge: (blue boxes); made up text
phrases (from a controlled vocab???)
Benchmarks skills: (white boxes); made up text
phrases (from a controlled vocab???)
Strands: (gray phrases plus use the map name because
strand names are not unique); this is a vertical slice; made up of benchmarks
across the spectrum of grade levels; the benchmarks may be just in that strand
alone or the benchmarks may be between strands; thus some benchmarks on a
map go to multiple strands on a map
Grade Groups: (gray grade scales; string together
the cluster name, map name and grade level to arrive at the name of the grade
group); made up of benchmarks across a single grade level; this is a horizontal
slice
Maps: (top of page black lettering) made up of
strands
Clusters: (top of page blue lettering) made of
up maps
Chapters: (front page of each section of maps,
use TOC); made up clusters
Atlas: (the whole book; use name of book); made
up of chapters; other books will exist
Sections: The text narrative from the Benchmarks
book that encompasses
SFFA paragraphs: Certain paragraphs from the Science
for All American Book.
Metadata framework for SMS collection objects
When developing a metadata framework, you want to know the general concepts
to be captured. A concept could be date information or the name and description
of something. Concepts then lead to several individual metadata fields like
the date the resource was cataloged, the date the resource was accessioned into
the library. The table below illustrates the developing metadata framework for
the Strand Map Service by listing SMS collection objects across the top and
potential metadata fields down the left column. Not all the fields apply to
each object in the collection. Information collected about an object may depend
on the type of object. See the table key for further explanation.
Table Key: M is mandatory metadata, S is mandatory
metadata with a special vocabulary, O is optional metadata
Objects
Fields
benchmark
strand
map
cluster
chapter
atlas
grade group
SFAA
benchmark
section
name
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
source
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
object type
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
id number
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
cataloger
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
relationship to other collection objects
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
secondary grade range
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
primary grade range
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
record status
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
AAAS code
M
S
S
S
S
S
S
M
M
full text
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
description
M
S
M
M
M
M
S
M
M
subject (use DLESE list)
O
O
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
keywords
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
metadata copyright
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
metadata language
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
date created
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
M
date modified
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
date accessioned
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
relationships to external standards
M
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
relationships to external resources
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
narrative- student ideas
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
narrative- examples
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
narrative- assessment
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
narrative- instructional
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
narrative- clarification
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
For a better understanding of the conceptual metadata framework depicted by
the table above, some of the collection objects are listed below and the content
of the metadata fields name, full text
and description is described.
Object: One of the Boxes
name: The first line of text of the box
description: The content of the box on each map
(which is sometimes text or a partial benchmark)
full text: The full text of the benchmark
Object: SFFA
name: Use the paragraph name from the SFAA index;
Should the section name be included too?
description: the text of paragraph 3 starting
on page 42 and ending on page 43
full text: the entire Earth section text on pages
42-44
Object: Strand
name: gray text at the bottom of the page plus
the map name (e.g. relative motion: Gravity G for pg 43 and relative motion:
Laws of Motion for pg 63)
description: The strand is made up of individual
benchmarks across different grade levels relating to X (where X is the strand
name or free
text we make up)
full text: say 'Not applicable'
Object: Map
name: the text on the upper right of the map
description: The map is made up of individual
benchmarks across different grade levels relating to X (where X is the strand
name or free
text we make up)
full text: Stuff on the left side of the map.
Object: Benchmark section
name: 1A The Scientific World with no levels OR
1A The Scientific World with all levels OR
1A The Scientific World with K-2 OR
1A The Scientific World with 3-5 OR etc.
description: 2-3 sentences of free text or use
some text from the full text or say the description is provided by the full
text
full text: The actual text from the Benchmark
book
XML information for metadata fields
Once the individual fields of a metadata framework are determined, XML specification
information for each field is needed. When the XML specification information
is complete, development and direct coding of the metadata framework into XML
schemas can be done. The following is the list of XML specification information
needed about each metadata field listed in the table above.
Definition of the field
Interpretation of the field (e.g. it this but not this kind of thing)
Technical implementation considerations
Cataloging best practices
XML tag Set
Obligation (e.g.optional, mandatory, etc.)
Other occurrences in the framework
Maximum occurrences
Data type (e.g. compound, real, etc.)
Domain (free text, decimal, etc.)
Example entry for the field
Default value for the field
State whether a controlled vocabulary is necessary (e.g. yes, no, not applicable)
Vocabulary source - that is who maintains the vocabulary
Vocabulary explanation
Vocabulary terms
Vocabulary definitions
Types of relationships
Within collections, it is often desirable to create relationships between objects.
This section describes broad categories of relationships and then presents observed
relationships for the SMS collection. The broad categories are:
Equivalence: synonym of terms and the ability
to suggest which term is the preferred term
Hierarchy: reflect hierarchy (spatial, conceptual
or terminological) of terms by showing how terms are linked to other terms.
These links are often shown by the items belonging to a broad class (CL) and
defining broad and narrow terms for the item (abbreviated BT and NT). Direct
relationships are also established like 'Is part of' or 'Requires'.
Association: a method to indicate relationships
across hierarchies. This is expressed as related terms (RT).
Scope Notes: defines term or breadth of term
(abbreviated SN).
Internal relationships between SMS collection
objects
For this project, the observed relationships below seem to fall into the hierarchy
category. The list below also provides a vocabulary term (e.g. Is part of )
that may be used to describe the observed relationship. These are displayed
in bold. Please note at the 2-7-03 mtg, Ted emphasized
that connections between the benchmarks and the section in the Benchmark book
should be added. Often the cluster name will be the same as the section name
but maybe not; thus the reason for the adding the section relationship. Ted
said we could keep the cluster relationship for now.
Connect benchmarks to benchmarks
bi-directional (double-headed) arrow (appears to occur only within a
grade range) -now is :Contributes to and relies upon was:Is closely related to (encompasses
the following 2 concepts example to generalization and overlaps or works
with very closely)
gray dash lines - Is part of or Is
closely related to because the benchmark with the gray dashed
line either is on the indicated map or is connected to a benchmark on
the indicated map. Ted will need to tell us which benchmarks need what.
single direction arrows within a grade range - Contributes
to achieving
single direction arrows across a grade range - Contributes
to achieving
Connect benchmarks to gradegroup - Is part of
Connect benchmarks to strands - Is part of
Connect benchmarks to clusters- Is part of
Connect benchmarks to maps - Is part of
Connect benchmarks to chapters - Is part of
Connect benchmarks to atlas - Is part of
Connect strands to maps - Is part of
Connect strands to clusters - Is part of
Connect strands to chapters - Is part of
Connect strand to atlas - Is part of
Connect maps to gradegroup - References
Connect maps to clusters - Is part of
Connect maps to chapters - Is part of
Connect maps to atlas - Is part of
Connect chapters to atlas - Is part of
Connect strands to benchmarks - References
Connect maps to strands - References
Connect maps to benchmarks - References
Connect clusters to strands - References
Connect clusters to maps - References
Connect clusters to benchmarks - References
Connect chapters to maps - References
Connect chapters to strands - References
Connect chapters to clusters - References
Connect chapters to benchmarks - References
Connect atlas to chapters - References
Connect atlas to clusters - References
Connect atlas to maps - References
Connect atlas to strands - References
Connect atlas to benchmarks - References
Connect gradegroup to benchmark - References
Connect gradegroup to map - Is part of
Connect benchmarks to the appropriate section in the Benchmark book - Is
part of
Connect benchmarks to SFAA - Is associated with
Connect maps to SFAA or Benchmark book objects - Is associated
with
Connect clusters to SFAA and Benchmark book objects - Is associateed
with
Connect chapters to SFAA and Benchmark book objects - Is associateed
with
Connect strand to SFAA and Benchmark book objects - Is associateed
with
Connect atlas to SFAA and Benchmark book objects - Is associateed
with
Connect gradegroup to SFAA and Benchmark book objects - Is associateed
with
Connect SFAA to Benchmark book objects - Is associateed with
External relationships between SMS objects and other standards
Connect benchmarks to another standard - Is associated with
(need Ted input here)
External relationships between SMS objects and other resources
Connect benchmarks to resource - Is referenced by
Connect benchmarks to resource - Supports??? some word
Last updated: 5-19-03
Maintained by: Katy Ginger (ginger@ucar.edu), DLESE Metadata Working Group
