Talk:OER Handbook/educator/Adapt/Preferred formats
- [View source↑]
- [History↑]
Contents
| Thread title | Replies | Last modified |
|---|---|---|
| The string 'standard' seems to be missing? | 3 | 16:31, 30 June 2008 |
i.e. "Open Standards" and perhaps "interoperability". Cross-reference or optimise/merge these? (reconsider later)
I merged Metadata and Packaging into Preferred formats, as I thought that would make the most sense.
I'm not sure what you mean by the string 'standard' missing. I'm guessing what you mean is my usage in terms of "File format X is more open than file format Y." I changed one of the sentences I think is in question, but I may have missed others.
"Open standards" wouldn't work, in my mind, because the word "standards" conjures up detailed specifications of W3C, SCORM and IMS and not of how the format is run or documented. "Interoperability" wouldn't work, again in my estimation, because the openness of a format is larger than interoperability. For example, .DOC interoperates with many programs, but is not the same as ODT.
The usage of "open" in this manner is done at COSL, but I recognize we're just one group among many in the community.
Let's continue the conversation, as I think there's terminology we both can agree on.
Correct - merging metadata and packaging captured what I meant.
Shall we merge the two sections on formats and place the result under "Compose"?
See alternative version ready to paste.
