Skip to main content
Log in

Comparison of knowledge during the assembly process of learning objects

  • Published:
Journal of Intelligent Information Systems Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper describes the conceptual framework OntoGlue for the assembly of learning objects (LOs). To permit a coherent assembling process from the point of view of requirements and competencies, OntoGlue enhances the definition of LOs by including associated knowledge (i.e. requirements and competencies) in their conceptual data schema. This associated knowledge is defined in terms of classes of educational ontologies (used as taxonomies), possibly related by mappings. There are several advantages associated with the OntoGlue approach. Firstly, it provides an enhanced description of the LOs, which permits their search and reuse by considering requirements and competencies. Secondly, during the assembly process of two LOs, OntoGlue checks that the competencies of the first LO cover the requirements of the second LO, guaranteeing a coherent assembling process from the requirements and competencies’ point of view. Thirdly, OntoGlue automatically calculates the meta-data of the resulting assembled LO. Finally, the definition of the associated knowledge in terms of classes of ontologies, possibly related by mappings, permits an advanced comparison of requirements and competencies during assembly and search processes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Mastery is a complex concept. For example, (Bloom 1968) outlined a specific strategy for using formative classroom assessments to guide teachers in differentiating their instruction and labelled it mastery learning (Guskey 2005). However, in our work, the word mastery has more simple semantics and basically means understanding.

  2. See definition in http://www.answers.com/topic/transitive-closure TransitiveClosure.html.

  3. If function f:XY, and x ∈ X, then f(x) belongs to the image of function f.

  4. Note that class Object-oriented design patterns belonging to ontology Software engineering (Fig. 2) is syntactically different from class OO design patterns belonging to ontology SWEBOK (Fig. 3).

  5. As previously mentioned, OntoGlue assumes the presence of 1:n mappings. During the calculation of the covered knowledge of a class it is not necessary to keep the images by mappings of this class; but to calculate the sufficient knowledge of a class, it is necessary to take into account the representation by mappings of this class. Thus, it is possible to know when a class is really covered by bearing in mind the classes in which a class can be broken down by the action of a mapping. Note that we are considering 1:n mappings, and in this case, a class can be mapped into several classes.

References

  • AICC (Aviation Industry CBT Committee) (2002). AICC web site. http://www.aicc.org.

  • ARIADNE (Alliance of Remote Instructional Authoring and Distribution Networks for Europe) (2000). ARIADNE web site. http://www.ariadne-eu.org/.

  • Baldoni, M., Baroglio, C., & Patti, V. (2004). Web-based adaptive tutoring: An approach based on logic agents and reasoning about actions. Artificial Intelligence Review, 22(1), 3–39.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Barritt, C., Lewis, D., & Wieseler, W. (1999). CISCO systems reusable informaton strategy, ver. 3.0. http://www.cisco.com.

  • Berners-Lee, T. (2001). The semantic web. http://www.scientificamerican.com/.

  • Bloom, B. S. (1968). Learning for mastery. Evaluation Comment (UCLA-CSIEP), 1(2), 1–12.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brusilovsky, P., & Rizzo, R. (2003). Accessing web educational resources from mobile wireless devices: The knowledge sea approach. In Proc of the mobile HCI workshop on mobile and ubiquitous information access 2003 (pp. 54–66).

  • Campbell, L. (2003). Engaging with the learning object economy. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), In reusing online resources, a sustainable approach to e-learning. London: Kogan Page US.

    Google Scholar 

  • Capuano, N., Gaeta, M., Micarelli, A., & Sangineto, E. (2002). An integrated architecture for automatic course generation. In Proc. of the IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies ICALT 2002 (pp. 322–326).

  • CEN/ISSS-LTWS European Committee for Standardization (2003). CEN web site. http://www.cenorm.be/isss/workshop/lt.

  • Cisco (2000). RLO (Reusable Learning Objects). http://www.cisco.com/warp/public/10.

  • DeCS, Health Sciences Descriptors (2008). DeCS web site. http://decs.bvs.br/I/homepagei.htm.

  • Di Nitto, E., Mainetti, L., Monga, M., Sbattella, L. & Tedesco, R. (2006). Supporting interoperability and reusability of learning objects: The virtual campus approach. Educational Technology & Society, 9(2), 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dogac, A., Laleci, G., Kirbas, S., Kabak, Y., Sinir, S.S., Yildiz, A., et al. (2006). Artemis: Deploying semantically enriched web services in the healthcare domain. Information Systems, 31(4–5), 321–339.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dolog, P., Henze, N., Nejdl, W., & Sintek, M. (2004). Personlaziation in distributed e-learning environments. In Proc. of the 13th international world wide conference (pp. 170–179). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, R., Liburd, S., & Thomas, J. (2004). Dynamic assembly of learning objects. In Proc. of the 13th international world wide web conference (pp. 162-169). New York: ACM.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fodor, O., & Werthner, H. (2004). Harmonise: A set toward an interoperable e-tourism marketplace. International Journal of Electronic Commerce, 9(2), 11–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Genesereth, M. R., & Nilsson, N. (1987). Logical foundations of artificial intelligence. San Mateo: Morgan Kaufmann.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, T. R. (1993). Toward principles for the design of ontologies used for knowledge sharing. In N. Guarino & R. Poli (Eds.), Formal ontology in conceptual analysis and knowledge representation. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gupta, A., Ludäscher, B., & Martone, M. E. (2002). Registering scientific information sources for semantic mediation. In Proc of conceptual Modeling-ER 2002 (pp. 182–198).

  • Guskey, T. R. (2005). Formative classroom assessment and Benjamin S. Bloom: Theory, research, and implications. The Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal, Canada. http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICDocs/data/ericdocs2sql/content_storage_01/0000019b/80/1b/c1/35.pdf.

  • Hall, M., & Brown, L. (2003). Core Servlets and JavaServer pages: Core technologies, 2nd edn. (Vol. 1). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall PTR.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hodgins, W. (2000). Into the future: A vision paper. In American Society for Training and Development (ASTD), and National Governors Association (NGA) Commission on Technology and Adult Learning.

  • IEEE (2003). LOM (Learning Object Metadata). http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/20020612-Final-LOM-Draft.html.

  • IEEE LTSC Final Draft Standard for Learning Object Metadata (2002). http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/LOM_1484_12_1_v1_Final_Draft.pdf.

  • IEEE/ACM Joint Task Force on Computing Curricula. Computing Curricula (2001). Computer Science. http://www.computer.org/portal/cms_docs_ieeecs/ieeecs/education/cc2001/cc2001.pdf.

  • IMS Global Learning Consortium (1999). IMS Global Learning Consortium web site. http://www.imsglobal.org/.

  • IMS Learning Resource Meta-data Specification (2004). IMS learning resource meta-data specification, ver. 1.3. http://www.imsproject.org/metadata/.

  • Ip, A. (2005). Let’s take some action. http://elearningrandomwalk.blogspot.com/2005/12/lets-take-some-action.html.

  • Knolmayer, G. (2003). Decision support models for composing and navigating through e-learning objects. In Proc of the 36th annual Hawaii international conference on system sciences.

  • LALO (Learning Architectures and Learning Objects) (2000). http://www.learnativity.com/lalo.html.

  • L´Allier, J. (1998). NETg precision skilling: The linking of occupational skills descriptors to training interventions. http://www.netg.com/research/skillpaper.htm.

  • Learning Circuits (2005). Glossary. http://www.learningcircuits.org/glossary.html.

  • Littlejohn, A. (2003). Issues in reusing online resources. In A. Littlejohn (Ed.), Reusing online resources, a sustainable approach to e-learning. London: Kogan Page US.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maedche, A., Motik, B., Silva, N., & Volz, R. (2002). MAFRA—A MApping FRAmework for distributed ontologies. In Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management. Ontologies and the Semantic Web, 13th International Conference, EKAW.

  • Open Biomedical Ontologies (2008). Open Biomedical Ontologies web site. http://www.obofoundry.org/.

  • Pressman, R. S. (2004). Software engineering: A practitioner’s approach. 6th edn. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sánchez, S., & Sicilia, M. A. (2004). On the semantics of aggregation and generalization in learning object contracts. In Proc. of international conference on advanced learning technologies 2004, ICALT 2004.

  • Santacruz-Valencia, L. P., Aedo, I., & Delgado Kloss, C. (2003a). A framework for the creation, integration and reuse of learning objects. IEEE Computer society learning technology task force (LTTF) newsletter (Vol. 5, Issue 1).

  • Santacruz-Valencia, L. P., Aedo, I., & Delgado Kloss, C. (2003b). Designing le@rning objects with the ELO- tool. In Proc. The 3rd IEEE international conference on advanced learning technologies (ICALT’03). (pp. 372–373).

  • Santacruz-Valencia, L. P., Aedo, I., & Delgado Kloss, C. (2003c). A proposal for the composition of learning objects using didactical meta-data. In Proc. second international conference on multimedia information and communication technologies in education (m-ICTE 2003) (Vol. 1, pp. 415–419).

  • Santacruz-Valencia, L. P., Navarro, A., Aedo, I., & Delgado Kloss, C. (2005). An ontology-based mechanism for assembling learning objects. In Proc. e-learning on telecommunications (ELETE 2005) (pp. 472–477). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Santacruz-Valencia, L. P, Navarro, A., Delgado Kloss, C., & Aedo, I. (2008). ELO-tool: Taking action in the challenge of assembling learning objects. Journal of Educational Technology and Society, 11(1), 102–117.

    Google Scholar 

  • SCORM Version 1.0 (Shareable Courseware Object Reference Model Initiative) (2000). http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/default.aspx.

  • SCORM 2004 1st Edition (Shareable Courseware Object Reference Model Initiative) (2004). http://www.adlnet.gov/Technologies/scorm/default.aspx.

  • Sicilia, M. A., García, E., Sánchez S., & Soto, J. A. (2005). Semantic lifecycle approach to learning object repositories. In Proc. of AICT/SAPIR/ELETE 2005 (pp. 466–471).

  • Silva, N., & Rocha, J. (2003). Semantic web complex ontology mapping. In Proc. web intelligence 2003 (pp. 82–88). Los Alamitos: IEEE Computer Society.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sommerville, I. (2006). Software engineering, 8th edn. Reading: Addison-Wesley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stamos, D. N. (2004). The species problem, biological species, ontology, and the metaphysics of biology. Lexington: Lexington.

    Google Scholar 

  • SWEBOK (2005). Guide of the Software Engineering Body of Knowledge. http://www.swebok.org.

  • Verbet, K., Jovanović, J., Duval, E., Gas̃ević, D., Meire, M. (2006). Ontology-based learning content repurposing: The ALOCoM framework. International Journal on E-Learning, 5(1), 67–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, E. (2002). Step to creating a content strategy for your organization. eLearning Developers’ Journal. eLearning Guild. http://www.elearningguild.com/pdf/2/102902MGT-H.pdf.

  • Warwick (2000). Warwick framework. http://www.dlib.org/dlib/july96/lagoze/.

  • Wiley, D. A. (2002). The instructional use of learning objects. http://www.reusability.org/read/.

  • Wille, C., Abran, A., Desharnais, J. M., & Dumke, R. R. (2003). The quality concepts and subconcepts in SWEBOK and ontology challenge. In Proc. of the 2003 international workshop on software measurement (IWSM) (pp. 113–130).

Download references

Acknowledgements

El Ministerio de Educaciön y Ciencia de España (MOSAIC TSI2005-08225-C07-01, OdA Virtual TIN2005-08788-C04-01, IPS-CV TIN2008-06708-C03-01/TSI), and La Universidad Complutense de Madrid (Grupo de investigaciön 921340) have supported this work. We would also like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their useful comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Liliana Patricia Santacruz-Valencia.

Appendices

Appendix A: Algorithm coveredKnowledge

This Appendix provides an algorithm which calculates the knowledge covered by a class c. In order to define this algorithm some functions must be defined.

Definition 9.1

(directReachablesC) This function calculates all the classes that can be directly reached from class c via the application of any mapping with class c in its domain.

$$\begin{array}{rcl} directReachablesC: \Omega_{Classes} & \to & 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} \\ c & \to & \bigcup\limits_{m \in \{m' \in \Omega_{mappings} | isDefined(m',c)\}} m(c) \end{array}$$

Algorithm coveredKnowledge

This algorithm calculates the knowledge covered by a class. It has a functional appearance in order to be as language-independent as possible. This function bears in mind the transitive closure for the relation of specialization and for the relations induced by mappings. It is defined in: \( coveredKnowledge: \Omega_{Classes} \to 2^{\Omega_{Classes}}\).

To calculate coveredKnowledge(c) we have to define the following sets:

$$\begin{array}{rcl} Reachables_0 & = & \{c\} \in 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} \\ Subclasses_0 & = & subClasses(c) \in 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} \\ Currents_0 & = & \left(Reachables_0 \bigcup Subclasses_0\right) \in 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} \end{array}$$

The function coveredKnowledge uses the recursive function calculateC to carry out its functionality. Thus, coveredKnowledge(c) = calculateC(Currents 0,Reachables 0, Subclasses 0).

The function calculateC is defined below. This function keeps calculating the transitive closure of both relationships by considering the new reachable classes from the current subclasses, and the new subclasses of the new reachable classes.

Definition 9.2

(calculateC) The function \(calculateC: 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} \times 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} \times 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} \to 2^{\Omega_{Classes}}\) is defined as follows (k ≥ 0):

calculateC(Currents k , Reachables k , Subclasses k ) =

  • calculateC(Currentsk + 1, Reachablesk + 1, Subclassesk + 1), if Reachablesk + 1 ≠ ∅

  • Currents k , if Reachablesk + 1 = ∅

Where:

$$\begin{array}{rcl} Reachables_{k+1} & = & \Bigg(\Bigg(\bigcup\limits_{c \in (Reachables_k \bigcup Subclasses_k)} directReachablesC(c)\Bigg) \setminus Currents_k\Bigg) \in 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} \\ Subclasses_{k+1} & = & \Bigg(\Bigg(\bigcup\limits_{c \in Reachables_{k+1}} subClasses(c)\Bigg)\setminus Currents_k\Bigg) \in 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} \\ Currents_{k+1} & = & \left(Currents_k \bigcup Reachables_{k+1} \bigcup Subclasses_{k+1} \in\right) 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} \end{array}$$

The set Reachables k keeps count of the transitive closure of the relation image of of a certain class by all the mappings that have this class in their domain. The set Subclasses k keeps count of the transitive closure of the relation subclass of of a certain class. Likewise, the set Currents k keeps count of the original class and its transitive closures by both relations. Finally, note that although from a theoretical point of view the length of coverage could be potentially infinite, in practice (i.e. in the context of a specific computing system) this length is necessarily finite.

Appendix B: Algorithm sufficientKnowledge

This appendix provides an algorithm which calculates the sufficient knowledge for a class c. In order to define this algorithm some functions must be defined.

Definition 10.1

(directReachablesS) As in the case of function directReachablesC, this function calculates all the classes that can be directly reached from class c via the application of any mapping with class c in its domain. As we mention above, now it is necessary both to calculate the reachable classes and to take into account the representations of these classes across mappings. For this reason, this function takes into account the classes into which, possibly, a class can be split due to the mappings.

$$\begin{array}{rcl} directReachablesS: 2^{\Omega_{Classes}} & \to & 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}} \\ directReachablesS(\{c_1, c_2,\dots, c_n\}) & = & \bigcup\limits_{m \in \{m' \in \Omega_{mappings} | \forall i, 1 \leq i \leq n, isDefined(m', c_i)\}} \Bigg\{\bigcup\limits_{c_i \in\{c_1, \dots, c_n\}} m(c_i)\Bigg\} \end{array}$$

Algorithm sufficientKnowledge

This algorithm calculates the sufficient knowledge for a class. It has a functional appearance in order to be as language-independent as possible. This function bears in mind the transitive closure for the relation of generalization and for the relations induced by mappings. It is defined in: \(sufficientKnowledge: \Omega_{Classes} \to 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}}\). In order to define function sufficientKnowledge(c), the following sets are defined:

$$ \begin{array}{rcl} Reachables_0 & = & \{\{c\}\} \in 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}} \\ Superclasses_0 & = & superClasses(\{c\}) \in 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}} \\ Currents_0 & = & \left(Reachables_0 \bigcup Superclasses_0\right) \in 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}} \end{array} $$

The function sufficientKnowledge uses the recursive function calculateS to carry out its functionality. Thus, sufficientKnowledge(c) = calculateS(Currents 0, Reachables 0, Superclasses 0).

This function keeps calculating the transitive closure of the two relationships by considering the new reachable classes from the current superclasses, and the new superclasses of the current reachable classes.

Definition 10.2

(calculateS) Function \(calculateS: 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}} \times 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}} \times 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}} \to 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}}\) is defined as follows (k ≥ 0):

calculateS(Currents k , Reachables k , Superclasses k ) =

  • calculateS(Currentsk + 1, Reachablesk + 1, Superclassesk + 1,), if Reachablesk + 1 ≠ ∅

  • Currents k , if Reachablesk + 1 = ∅

Where:

$$ \begin{array}{rcl} Reachables_{k+1} &=& \Bigg(\Bigg(\bigcup\limits_{X \in (Reachables_k \bigcup Superclasses_k)} directReachablesS(X)\Bigg) \setminus \\ && Currents_k\Bigg) \in 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}} \\ Superclasses_{k+1}& =& \Bigg(\Bigg(\bigcup\limits_{X \in Reachables_{k+1}} superClasses(X)\Bigg) \setminus Currents_k\Bigg) \in 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}} \\ Currents_{k+1} &=& \left(Currents_k \bigcup Reachables_{k+1} \bigcup Superclasses_{k+1}\right) \in 2^{2^{\Omega_{Classes}}} \end{array} $$

The set Reachables k keeps count of the transitive closure of the relation image of of a certain class by all the mappings that have this class in their domain. The set Superclasses k keeps count of the transitive closure of the relation superClass of of a certain class. Likewise, the set Currents k keeps count of the original class and its transitive closures by both relations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Santacruz-Valencia, L.P., Navarro, A., Aedo, I. et al. Comparison of knowledge during the assembly process of learning objects. J Intell Inf Syst 35, 51–74 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-009-0088-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10844-009-0088-5

Keywords

Navigation