Many respondents expected a repository system to be conformant with 

content interoperability standards, as well as being conformant with, or 

providing crosswalks to, meta data standards.  

[ADL 2004, p.5] 

The interoperability of metadata within a learning repository is dependent on the adoption of 

an appropriate metadata standard. Additional factors include providing functionality to allow 

the mapping between different metadata schemas within the repository, and the ability to 

expose and harvest metadata. The most accepted metadata standard for learning and 

teaching resources within the UK is the UK LOM (Learning Object Metadata), which is an 

application profile for the IEEE LOM. Effective interoperability has allowed projects such as 

EdNA Online (Australia) and MERLOT in the US to provide a federated search for users 

between the two metadata repositories.  

The implementation of metadata standards is a key element to support interoperability 

between repository projects, although it is important to remember that strict compliance with 

metadata specifications such as IMS can sometimes hinder contributions and in certain 

circumstances restrict the search and retrieval of resources.  

Compliance with metadata standards is obligatory if distributed repositories 

are to function. Thus discussions of metadata can frequently turn into 

discussions concerning compliance  with metadata standards. Yet as these 

standards are encouraged in the interests of interoperability we must not 

forget the other functions of metadata   to describe and locate resources.  

[ADL 2003, p.23]  

Interoperability with regards to of content within a learning repository is dependent on its 

ability to import and export standards based content packages. The main standards adopted 

with relation to content packaging are IMS and SCORM. Due to repository vendor's 

interpretation of the standards, the degree to which a repository implements a content 

packaging specification is so varied that interoperability of resources between learning 

repositories is extremely immature. In addition, at times progress seems to be hindered by 

repository vendors who adhere to the minimum amount of a specification in order to gain a 

competitive advantage in the marker, by stating the compliance of their system to the 

standards.  

Community Support 

Repositories are born in response to a community's growing requirements, or for the purpose 

of creating a community that currently doesn't exist. 

In some ways all learning repositories create a community of practice that 

did not previously exist. A repository project that hopes to draw upon a body 

of users for its content and metadata must of course create a practice that 

leads to the submission of both to that repository. But reports from learning 

repository administrators showed that some successful repositories develop 

from pre existent communities of practice within which there was a desire for 

a repository to begin with.  

[ADL 2003, p.18] 

Regardless of their reason for existing, users will always expect some degree of community 

support. Community support can be defined as a set of services, tools or functionality that is 

outside the boundaries of the physical repository. Evidence suggests that the more successful 

repository services put equal emphasis on supporting their community, as functionality within 

the repository. 

 Standards should not precede practice,  or that repository practices, ranging 

from collection development polices to metadata standards, should not be 

Page 14 of 84