An impressive, and apparently new site from Ryan Eby, with a thoughtful suggestion:
Phil has an interesting post on the differences between trackback and pingback. I agree with his comments on when trackback and pingback are relevant. I think this is something that should be looked into more for content/learning object repositories. For example, if I find a learning object such as MLX #467 on Atomic Structure and decide I want to write a review of it or something similar, then I would want to send it a trackback so that others can find my post on it, if they are browsing the objects. However, if I actually use the flash animation in some sort of online setting (as part of a lesson, etc.) then it would probably be wiser for me to send a pingback as just a way of showing I’m using it. Pingback is structured so you can ping any file and so it probably a more sensible thing for when I’m just using an image or something for a site I made.
… This is a topic that will have to be covered more in-depth for repositories. Trackback is an important feature, but I also think pingback is extremely important as well. Pingback could be another method of showing the links between/to objects used in a learning example. Back to the MLX example, some cards also have multiple parts to them and a ping to a specific part such as an image, animation or handout would probably be more useful if I was using them, instead of just to the object overview. It is unlikely that I would use everything from some of the objects that contain complete lessons or unit plans. I guess this also brings up the question of how generic a repository item should be. Should it be split up to it’s components, i.e handouts, graphics, etc.? Or should they be grouped together as a lesson and then pingback be used as a way to reference the parts within it?
Via Carving Code (and Scott)
