Advertisement

Conceptual Structures for STEM Data

Linked, Open, Rich and Personal
  • Su White
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 7735)

Abstract

Linked and open data is increasing being used by governments, business and administration. Awareness of the affordances and potential utility of open data is being raised by the emergence of a host of web-based and mobile applications.

Across the educational and research communities applications applying the principles linked data principles have emerged.

Systems developed and used by researchers and academics are most likely to be predominantly in the hands of the early adopters and current developments found in higher education tend to be atomized, yet there is potentially considerable advantage in associating and integrating applications for organisational, educational and administrative.

This paper presents an argument for how we can move from early adopters to early majority, and at the same time presents a roadmap which will outline some of the significant challenges which remain to be addressed.

Keywords

linked data open data semantic annotation higher education organizational change 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berners-Lee, T., Hendler, J., Lassila, O.: The Semantic Web. Scientific American 284, 34–43 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shadbolt, N.R., Gibbins, N., Glaser, H., Harris, S., Schraefel, m.c.: CS AKTive Space or how we stopped worrying and learned to love the Semantic Web. IEEE Intelligent Systems 19, 41–47 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shadbolt, N., Berners-Lee, T., Hall, W.: The Semantic Web Revisited. IEEE Intelligent Systems 21, 96–101 (2006)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Berners-Lee, T., Weitzner, D.J., Hall, W., O’Hara, K., Shadbolt, N., Hendler, J.: A Framework for Web Science. Foundations and Trends in Web Science 1, 1–130 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Berners-Lee, T.: The process of designing things in a very large space: Keynote Presentation. In: WWW 2007 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shirky, C.: A group is its own worst enemy - A speech at ETech. Clay Shirky’s Writings About the Internet: Economics & Culture, Media & Community, Open Source (April 2003), http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
  7. 7.
    O’Reilly, T.: What Is Web 2.0 – Design Patterns and Business Models for the Next Generation of Software (2005), http://oreilly.com/web2/archive/what-is-web-20.html (last accessed June 2010)
  8. 8.
    O’Reilly, T.: What is Web 2.0: Design patterns and business models for the next generation of software. Communications & Strategies 1, 17–37 (2007)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Cabinet Office Open Data White Paper Unleashing the Potential Unleashing the Potential Open Data White Paper 52, London (2011), http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/resource-library/open-data-white-paper-unleashing-potential
  10. 10.
    Shotton, D., Portwin, K., Klyne, G., Miles, A.: Adventures in semantic publishing: exemplar semantic enhancements of a research article. PLoS Computational Biology 5, e1000361 (2009)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wilson, S.: Community-driven Specifications: xCrI, sword, and Leap2a. International Journal of IT Standards and Standardization Research 8, 74–86 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Davis, H.C., Carr, L.A., Hey, J.M.N., Howard, Y., Millard, D.E., Morris, D., White, S.: Bootstrapping a Culture of Sharing to Facilitate Open Educational Resources. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 3, 96–109 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Koper, R.: Modelling units of study from a pedagogical perspective the pedagogical meta-model behind EML (2001)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    IEEE Learning Standards Committee (LTSC) IEEE P1484.12 Learning Object Metadata Working Group; WG12, http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/
  15. 15.
    Campbell, L.M.: UK Learning Object Metadata Core Working Draft Version 0.3 1204 (2004)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tattersall, C.: Comparing Educational Modelling Languages on a CaseStudy: An Approach using IMS Learning Design. In: Sixth International Conference on Advanced Learning Technologies, pp. 1154–1155 (2006)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Long, P., Siemens, G.: Penetrating the Fog: Analytics in Learning and Education. Educause Review 46, 31–40 (2011)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Siemens, G.: Connectivism: A Learning Theory for the Digital Age. International Journal of Instructional Technology and Distance Learning 2, 1–8 (2005)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Siemens, G., Downes, S.: Connectivism and connective knowledge: Course delivered at University of Manitoba (September-November 2008), http://ltc.umanitoba.ca/connectivism/
  20. 20.
    Laurillard, D.: Rethinking University Teaching: a Framework for the Effective Use of Educational Technology. Routledge, London (1993)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Siemens, G.: Learning Analytics: Envisioning a Research Discipline and a Domain of Practice. In: Second International Conference on Learning Analytics and Knowledge (LAK 2012), pp. 4–8 (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Siemens, G., Gasavic, D.: Learning and Knowledge Analytics. Journal of Educational Technology & Society 15, 1–2 (2012)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Biggs, J.: Teaching for quality learning at university: what the student does. Open University Press in Association with The Society for Research into Higher Education, Buckingham (1999)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hall, W., Davis, H.C., Hutchings, G.: Rethinking Hypermedia the Microcosm Approach. Kluwer, Boston (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    White, S., Liccardi, I.: Harnessing Insight into Disciplinary Differences to Refine e-learning Design. In: 36th Annual Frontiers in Education Conference, pp. 5–10 (2006), doi:10.1109/FIE.2006.322553Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Tiropanis, T., Davis, H., Millard, D., Weal, M., White, S., Wills, G.: JISC - SemTech Project Report 28, Bristol (2009)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Biglan, A.: The characteristics of subject matter in different academic areas. Journal of Applied Psychology 57, 195–203 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Biglan, A.: Relationships between subject matter characteristics and the structure and output of university departments. Journal of Applied Psychology 57, 204–213 (1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Becher, T.: The Significance of Disciplinary Differences. Studies In Higher Education 19, 151 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Cassel, L.N., Davies, G., LeBlanc, R., Snyder, L., Topi, H.: Using a Computing Ontology as a Foundation for Curriculum Development. In: SW-EL 2008 Conjunction with ITS 2008 (2008)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Su White
    • 1
  1. 1.Web and Internet Science, ECSUniversity of SouthamptonUK

Personalised recommendations