Metadata Collections & QA
Skip navigation Digital Library for Earth System Education
Digital Library for Earth System Education
Search tips

Strand map service

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?)

Top

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?

Top

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.

Top

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

Top

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

Top

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

Top

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).

Top

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)

Top

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