eLML - eLesson Markup Language

We could do it like for other attributes such as cssStyles etc. The
enumeration values could be defined in the validate.xsd file (for each
project). As a standard we could define two values e.g. 'all' and
'restricted' and implement these two. If projects add additional values,
then they have to implement it themselves.

However, for this concepts we wouldn't need such a complex structure of
elements etc. that we have now. That could be done by one simple attribute
for e.g. the multimedia element... we talked once about three new
attributes... ?

Von Christian:
Ich kann glaube ich keine qualifizierte Antwort auf deine Frage geben. Nur
so viel, dass der Autor bei einer Transformation wählen kann zwischen
mindestens
1) Publikation mit allen Objekten (Print und HTML)
2) Publikation unter restringierten Umständen - hier werden Bilder durch
einen Default-Text ersetzt. (HTML)

@Susanne: Um das zu realisieren müssten wir in den Metadaten Werte
vorgeben... Oder wie siehst Du das?

I am sorry, it is correct. My mistake. I had to add the "label" attribute
with the value "blabla" to the multimedia element and then it worked. Sorry
about that.

Now how should I implement the online and print version of this???

I tried out your changes to the schema but they dont work correctly yet. I
did add the labelRef attribute with the value "blabla" to a multimedia
element and added to the metadata section the following statement:
<contentCopyrights>
<copyrightStatement labelRef="blabla">This is a test</copyrightStatement>
</contentCopyrights>

But the schema complains that the lesson is not valid. Can you have a look
at it?

> I'd really like to have this information specified in the metadata
section

alright with me, Susanne, as long as all the three requirements from my
last comments can be met and as long as it is simple enough for authors.

Thanx indeed for taking this issue so serious.

I'd really like to have this information specified in the metadata section
(where the general copyright statement already is). There we can add as
many elements and attributes as needed. The reference to the specific
elements within the lesson would be made via a label reference - meaning
each multimedia object gets a unique label (this attribute is already
available for most of the elements) and in the metadata section I can
specify any copyright information for all of the labels or for each label
separately.

oops, it was susanne not joel who opposed to the idea of three atttributes

> Three more attributes for the multimedia element... I don't like the
idea.
> This is much to heavy.


Maybe I made the mistake to be too specific what the number attributes
concerns. So this is what is necessary from a user's perspective:

The XML Schema should contain the following information for every object
(pic and multimedia)
1. Is its copyright information identic with the copyright informaton of
the whole course/lesson?
- this information is preset to "yes" - if an author has reason to change
it he or she can do so
2. If the copyright information for an object is not identic with the
copyright informaton of the whole course/lesson then this should be
specified.
- these values should be be at least all models of creative commons
licences and one value for objects which are not published in the public
domain
- of course 1. and 2. can be the same attribute if you like it that way
3. For every object that must be prevented from publication due to
copyright restrictions an alternative text must represent the object. This
text can be a preset dependent on the language information/metadata and on
the copyleft information - or a free text defined by the author.
- make it a preset dependent on the language and on the copyleft/copyright
information if you want to diminish the number of attributes

you see, Joel, I don't want to implement three attributes but three
"information values" in whatever way the developpers will find out
sorry for not having been precise enough

Three more attributes for the multimedia element... I don't like the idea.
This is much to heavy.

Joels questions
1. Which element need a copyright attribute? Only multimedia?
2. What is the content allowed? Plain Text or a set of values?
3. Do we include this in the transformation scenarios?
Answers
1. all objects/elements like pics and movies
many authors use scanned pics from books which makes the publication under
an open content licence impossible
2. the attribute should be such as "falls under the same conditions as
text/course" or "doesn't fall ..."
the licence model cc licenses should be another attribute dependet upon
the first since it is a first decision of an author to declare if the
object falls under the same licence/authorship as the text and a second
what licens model it is.
3. that would be wonderful - in every publishing process the first
attribute determines if and how the object will be displayed.
therefore we need a third attribute with a alternative text as the
representation of the object for open publications. this is a necessary
attribute for all objects which "doesn't fall ..."

Although your labelRef-solution is quite elegant I think that it is too
complicated to be implemented (also within Firedocs??). So we should stay
with the attribute solution. The question is:
1. Which element need a copyright attribute? Only multimedia?
2. What is the content allowed? Plain Text or a set of values?
3. Do we include this in the transformation scenarios? E.g. a parameter in
the config.xml that allows a user to transform a lesson with only the
non-copyright protected images? If yes, what happens with the other images?
Some kind of warning text displayed?

My answers:
1. For the moment I would say only the multimedia element needs this
attribute.
2. We should stick with Creative Commons and use their 6 licenses:
by
by-sa
by-nd
by-nc
by-nc-sa
by-nc-nd
See http://creativecommons.org/about/license/
So this way an author can define anything from totally open to very
restricted. As a 7th point we would need something like "protected" which
means that the element cannot be reused at all (only for teaching, within
class). Does this make sense?
3. We could include this into the transformation process and give the
possibility to the user to create a version of a lesson that can be
published under creative commons license XY...

Please add your comments...

Sorry, I don't understand your suggestion. Can you please explain with
little more detail (what elements/attributes are to be added where) what
you mean. Thanks.

I still think that the solution I proposed below wouldn't be too bad. But
we still need to decide where to implement the new copyright element -
beside the multimedia element or rather in a special section/metadata
section of the lesson.

I think of implementing it related to the multimedia object with an
predefined setting as copyright under the same authorship as the course, so
that any user/author can change the value if necessary

I like this - but how to implement it?
I would propose to add a new element copyright (either at content level
(e.g. beside multimedia) or in the metadata at the end of a lesson) which
allows to define all needed infos (either as attributes or as subelements).
This new element copyright is then related to the multimedia object etc.
via the labelRef attribute. This allows to add copyright information to any
labeled element of a lesson and does not overload the multimedia element
with additional attributes that not everone needs.
Any thoughts on this?