RuleML‐based learning object interoperability on the Semantic Web
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose The present paper aims to describe an approach for building the Semantic Web rules for interoperation between heterogeneous learning objects, namely course outlines from different universities, and one of the rule uses: identifying (in)compatibilities between course descriptions. Design/methodology/approach As proof of concept, a rule set is implemented using the rule markup language (RuleML), a member of XML‐based languages. This representation in RuleML allows the rule base to be platform‐independent, flexibly extensible and executable. Findings The RuleML source representation is easily converted to other XML‐based languages (such as RDF, OWL and XMI) as well as incorporated into, and extracted from, existing XML‐based repositories (such as IEEE LOM and CanLOM) using XSL Transformations (XSLT). Practical implications The RuleML facts and rules represented in the positional slotted language are used by the OO jDREW reasoning engine to detect and map between semantically equivalent components of course outlines as the key step in their interoperation. In particular, this will enable the precise delivery of learning objects (e.g. course outlines) from repositories to a specific learner's context. Originality/value Although the particular scenario is discussed in the present paper, the proposed approach can be applied to other tasks related to enabling semantic interoperability.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".