ELML, THE E-LESSON MARKUP LANGUAGE
Developing Sustainable e-Learning Content Using an Open Source
XML Framework
Joël Fisler
Geography Department, University of Zurich, Winterthurerstrasse 190, 8057 Zurich, Switzerland
Susanne Bleisch
Basel University of Applied Sciences (FHNW), 4132 Muttenz, Switzerland
Keywords: e-Learning, XML, open source, sustainable content, Internet, web, SCORM, IMS, education, eLML.
Abstract: eLML, the open source “eLesson Markup Language”, is an XML framework allowing authors of
e-Learning lessons to create structured and sustainable content. eLML is based on the pedagogical concept
ECLASS (adapted from Gerson, 2000), standing for entry, clarify, look, act, self-assessment and summary.
Each lesson is divided into units that contain a number of smaller learning objects. To allow different teach-
ing and learning scenarios most of the structure elements are optional or can be repeated several times and
in different orders. Lessons written with eLML can be transformed into HTML or PDF or be imported into a
learning management system (LMS) using the SCORM or IMS Content Packaging format. The paper pre-
sents experiences from the development of eLML itself, the design of e-Learning content based on the
eLML-structure, and the use of eLML-based content in conjunction with a LMS.
1 INTRODUCTION
eLML was developed
by the Swiss e-Learning
project GITTA (Fisler,
2004), a modular online
course in Geographic Information Science and
Technology. Within the GITTA project nearly forty
authors from ten partner universities created around
fifty lessons and ten case studies. The heterogeneous
and multilingual consortium needed strict pedagogi-
cal and technical guidelines to create consistent les-
sons with the same look and feel. After an extensive
evaluation of existing tools and learning manage-
ment systems (LMS) – back in 2001 most LMS used
proprietary formats and there have been many pro-
jects using such tools and losing their content after a
LMS’ development was discontinued due to the lack
of export possibilities – the project coordinators
agreed in 2001 to use XML for the technical imple-
mentation and base it on the pedagogical model
ECLASS (Gerson, 2000). Thus, the lessons can be
checked and validated for certain rules and restric-
tions by a XML Schema and therefore all authors
must create identically structured lessons.
The launch of eLML came only after the official
ending of the GITTA project when the Swiss Virtual
Campus discovered the potential of GITTA’s XML
structure. With minimal funding a consolidated,
server-independent and well-documented XML
framework based on XML Schema was developed in
spring 2004. This updated GITTA XML structure
was named eLML, the eLesson Markup Language
(Fisler et al., 2004) and was published as an open
source project under the General Public License
(GPL) on Sourceforge.net. Since then a constantly
growing number of projects and authors in Switzer-
land and Germany have started using eLML as their
tool for creating e-Learning lessons. At the Univer-
sity of Zurich and the University of Applied Sci-
ences Northwestern Switzerland eLML has become
the main XML framework for creating and maintain-
ing e-Learning content, a fact that ensures that fur-
ther funding and developing skills are put into the
enhancement of eLML.
180
Fisler J. and Bleisch S. (2006).
ELML, THE E-LESSON MARKUP LANGUAGE - Developing Sustainable e-Learning Content Using an Open Source XML Framework.
In Proceedings of WEBIST 2006 - Second International Conference on Web Information Systems and Technologies - Society, e-Business and
e-Government / e-Learning, pages 180-187
DOI: 10.5220/0001254701800187
Copyright
c
 SciTePress

2 PEDAGOGICAL CONCEPT
The aim of eLML was to offer authors a tool that
ensured conformity to pedagogical guidelines. These
guidelines were adapted from the ECLASS model
developed by Gerson (2000). ECLASS is an acro-
nym for the terms entry, clarify, look, act, self-
assessment and summary. Together with additional
important elements like glossary, bibliography and
metadata, the ECLASS elements build the main
structure of the XML framework eLML. The differ-
ent elements allow the creation of a pattern of learn-
ing experiences helping people to learn effectively
and efficiently (Horton, 2000).
As shown in Figure 1, lessons are organized into
different modules that again are part of a complexity
level. Levels and modules are purely organizational
entities with no technical relation within eLML. In
eLML, lessons are the smallest interchangeable enti-
ties. A lesson is built from units (conforming to the
ECLASS model) and of additional elements like
learning objectives, bibliography, glossary and
metadata.
Level (e.g. Basic Level)
Module (e.g. Systems)
Lesson (e.g. What is a GIS?)
Unit (e.g. General Introduction)
- Entry
- Clarify
- Look
- Act
- Self-assessment
- Summary
Figure 1: ECLASS model adapted from Gerson.
eLML is not as rigid as it may look. Since some
elements are optional (see Figure 2) or can be used
in reverse order, it is flexible enough to allow the
representation of different e-Learning scenarios such
as the following:
– Lessons: Standard e-Learning lessons begin with
an entry element that describes the context or the
content of the lesson. They could continue with a
clarify element explaining the theory and either
one or more look elements to show examples or
an act element where the students are invited to
try something by themselves. Usually lessons
end with a self-assessment to check if the learn-
ing objectives are reached and a summary.
– Case studies: As Niederhuber (2005) describes,
GITTA case studies use their own didactical
model but are nevertheless implemented in
eLML. They usually start with an entry element
followed by two units (using clarify elements),
where the clarify elements are used to describe
the instructions and not to explain theory.
– Other Forms: Another project uses eLML to
document and generate structured reports. In this
case, elements such as act and self-assessment
elements are not used. The GITTA project even
uses eLML to create its public website.
3 THE STRUCTURE OF ELML
The described pedagogical model ECLASS is
mapped onto an XML structure using XML Schema:
Figure 2: Top level structure of eLML.
An eLML lesson always starts with either the
mandatory introduction (element entry) or a concise
listing of the lessons learning objectives (element
goals). The unit elements, described below, contain
the actual content of a lesson. Following the units a
lesson can have a summary and/or up to five self-
assessments followed by an optional further reading
and glossary section to list important resources and
to describe terms used within the lesson. The XML
Schema ensures that all glossary terms used in a
lesson are defined in the glossary. The APA (2005)
or the Harvard Citing System (Holland, 2004) can be
used for the bibliography. All citations, references,
further readings etc., have to be listed within the
bibliography section, otherwise the XML parser is-
sues an error and the lesson will not be valid.
Using mandatory elements eLML ensures that at
least the minimal metadata elements are filled out
even though many authors do not like to fill in
metadata information. The eLML metadata elements
ELML, THE E-LESSON MARKUP LANGUAGE - Developing Sustainable e-Learning Content Using an Open Source
XML Framework
181

are a subset of the IMS LOM “Learning Resource
Metadata Specification” (2002) and can be used to
store data about the length of the lessons, the au-
thor(s), copyrights, the required knowledge to work
through the lesson and the basic technical require-
ments. The bibliography style elements and the
metadata section are defined in a separate XML
Schema and thus can be replaced by other standards
or definitions.
Within each unit a similar structure as the one on
lesson level is employed. However, the elements
glossary, bibliography and metadata are always de-
fined for the whole lesson only and not repeated on
unit level. The actual content within a unit is stored
in a number of so-called “learning objects” (not to
be confused with the learning objectives, called
“goals” within eLML). Each learning object de-
scribes a certain concept, model, equation, term, or
process using the three elements clarify (theory),
look (example) and act in free order. These three
elements can have a special visual representation
when transformed into a presentation format – e.g. a
“gear” icon for act elements is used in GITTA to
signal to the student that they have to “do” some-
thing – but their main purpose is to guide authors
while creating content. Using the elements clarify,
look and act, the author has to think about how a
certain concept can be presented best to the student.
Whether a learning object starts with some theory
(clarify element) and continues with one or more
examples (look elements) or, alternatively, the stu-
dent first has to do something (act element) and then
reads the theory afterwards (clarify element) is left
to the author. Especially the element act should re-
mind the authors that effective learning is active
learning (Horton, 2000) and that exercises, projects
and other individual and group work should be in-
cluded into lessons. A learning object typically fits
on one or two screen pages and takes the student
about five to ten minutes to understand. But the total
length or required working time for a lesson is not
defined within eLML. Some projects use one eLML
lesson per two-hour classroom lesson; others repre-
sent a whole semester course in one lesson.
3.1 Structuring the Content
The last section covered the basic structure of an
eLML lesson. The mentioned structural elements,
entry, unit, learning object, self-assessment, sum-
mary etc., can be looked at as lesson chapter titles.
Within these chapters, there are content elements
that contain the actual text, multimedia elements,
and so on.
The old GITTA structure employed semantic
elements like, for example, explanation, remark or
motivation paragraphs. The authors rejected this
approach, as the usefulness of such elements was not
obvious. Additionally, most of those elements were
visually represented the same way when transformed
into a presentational format. If they were displayed
differently, then the authors selected the paragraphs
according to their final appearance and not because
of the semantic meaning. In theory, a total separa-
tion between content and representation (layout)
would be desirable but – as the GITTA project
showed within its three years – this is not realistic.
Therefore certain structural elements (column, for-
matted, newLine etc.) are offered within eLML to
meet the basic needs of the authors. The following
list describes the eLML content elements:
– column: Defines a two- or three-column layout.
– table: For tables and not as a layout element.
– list: Numbered or bulleted lists.
– box: Content is represented in a box. The exact
layout of boxes is defined in a separate CSS file.
– term: Using a glossary term the definition is ei-
ther appears as “mouse over” layer with a link to
the glossary or as a separate paragraph.
– newLine: A short or long line break.
– multimedia: Pictures, Flashes, Applets, Movies,
SVG or even plain HTML code (e.g. JavaScript).
– formatted: Possibility to format text as bold,
italic, underlined, subscript etc. or use CSS code.
– popup: Clicking on the question opens a box
with an answer.
– link: Link to external or internal resources in-
cluding other units, learning objects etc.
– citation: Can be inline or as a paragraph with
many options described in the manual. The cited
resource has to be defined in the bibliography!
– paragraph: Regular paragraph with attributes
like; being visible only to tutors, displayed only
in the print or online version of a lesson, etc.
– indexItem: Marks words to be listed in the index.
All of these elements have additional attributes
like role (tutor/student), visibility (online/print),
class (remark, important, etc.) and others parameters
described in detail in the manual. eLML also defines
rules for the nesting of elements. For instance, to
include a column within a list element would not
make sense, neither would a table within a multime-
dia element. Therefore the XML Schema exactly
defines which element can be used where.
3.2 Authoring Tools
Creating an eLML lesson typically starts with defin-
ing the learning objectives of a particular lesson (the
WEBIST 2006 - E-LEARNING
182

“goals” element). When the author has defined what
the student should learn from a lesson, they then
decide on the units that are needed to present the
subject matter and define learning objects that pre-
sent a certain aspect of the topic. The actual writing
of the lesson is usually done with an XML editor.
Multimedia elements like movies or flash anima-
tions etc. are made using the appropriate tools. To
facilitate the use of eLML for authors not familiar
with XML two promising solutions are in progress.
The University of Zurich is currently developing
an eLML authoring tool that will be integrated into a
content management system and allows simple edit-
ing of eLML lessons using a standard web browser.
This authoring tool should be available in late 2006.
Another solution is to use tools that can render a
Graphical User Interface (GUI) based on an XML
Schema like, for example, JAXFront (2001). It was
tested with eLML and is able to simplify the mainte-
nance of lessons enormously.
Figure 3: JAXFront renders a GUI based on an
XMLSchema.
4 PRESENTATION
eLML includes files for transformation of XML les-
sons into both an online (HTML) and a print (PDF)
version. A third output option for mobile devices
and PDAs is under construction. The following sec-
tions will cover the different formats supported by
eLML. This chapter also shows the advantage of
separating the presentation from the content, as it is
done with XML in general and therefore also with
eLML. While the content can be updated to reflect
the current knowledge about a subject, the presenta-
tion can be updated within seconds by simply re-
transforming the lessons. On the other hand it is pos-
sible to do the transformation of a lesson several
times with different transformation scripts and thus
get different output formats or styles.
4.1 Online (HTML)
The author of a lesson can choose between different
built-in layout templates or create their own tem-
plate. The standard transformation file of eLML
produces clean XHTML 1.0 code including many
CSS classes for boxes, tables, goals etc. The follow-
ing screenshot shows a lesson where the author only
adapted the according classes in the CSS file and did
not need any knowledge of HTML or XML at all:
Figure 4: Lesson presented using the FOIS project layout.
For knowledgeable authors it is possible to use
XHTML to create a more sophisticated layout like
the following example demonstrates:
Figure 5: Lesson presented using the GITTA layout.
ELML, THE E-LESSON MARKUP LANGUAGE - Developing Sustainable e-Learning Content Using an Open Source
XML Framework
183

Furthermore an author can decide if new
XHTML files should be created for each learning
object or if each unit should be displayed on one
page as a whole. This scenario is, for example, used
for case studies that do not contain as much text as
regular lessons. It is also possible to display the
whole lesson on one single page. The creation of
multiple pages is done by using XSLT 2.0 com-
mands; no parser specific elements have been used.
Therefore any XSLT 2.0 aware parsers support this
feature.
4.2 Online (SCORM & IMS CP)
eLML supports both Sharable Content Object Refer-
ence Model (SCORM, 2004) and IMS Content
Packaging (IMS CP, 2000) standards. Almost all
learning management systems (LMS) available to-
day like, for example, WebCT or OLAT, support
one of these standards and therefore are able to im-
port lessons created in eLML. The following exam-
ple shows the same lesson as illustrated in the last
chapter but this time imported into WebCT using the
SCORM standard:
Figure 6: Lesson imported into WebCT using SCORM.
At the University of Zurich the main learning
management system is a self-developed open source
LMS called OLAT (1999) that supports the IMS
Content Package standard for importing of lessons.
The following screenshot shows a lesson imported
as an IMS Content Package into OLAT:
Figure 7: Lesson imported into OLAT using IMS CP.
These examples show how lessons developed us-
ing eLML can be fully integrated into any LMS sup-
porting the mentioned standards. It is important to
understand that both the SCORM and the IMS CP
standards do not define how the content itself is
structured but how the lesson as a whole is built up
and packed. So if a project decides to support one of
these standards, there is still the need to decide on
how the actual chapters of a lesson are built-up and
structured. That’s where eLML is filling an impor-
tant gap that neither standards, SCORM and IMS
CP, cover.
4.3 Print (PDF)
The print version uses the Apache Formatting Object
Processor (Apache FOP, 2001) to generate a PDF
document similar to the one shown in Figure 8. The
FOP itself is a freely available open source product
and already built into most available XML editors.
Additional eLML parameters can be adjusted that
impact on the final layout. These include header and
footer texts, disabling the chapter numbering, lan-
guage settings, etc. These options are described in
detail in the eLML manual.
WEBIST 2006 - E-LEARNING
184

Figure 8: Lesson transformed into a PDF document.
4.4 Mobile Devices/PDA
There is a special layout version for mobile devices
like PDAs etc. under construction. This layout will
display a lesson in a specially adapted way so it can
be viewed on small screens with low resolutions.
The final version will be published on the eLML
website as soon as it is finished.
5 COMPARING ELML TO
OTHER MARKUP
LANGUAGES
eLML must be understood as the result of three
years working experience with an XML-based
e-Learning content structure. It was once planned
and realized but then improved over the years
through author feedback and the practical experi-
ences with it. This fact makes eLML a very easy to
understand and user-friendly markup language. To-
day many different XML markup languages for
e-Learning content exist but back in 2001 when
GITTA started none of the existing structures satis-
fied the projects needs. They were either to complex
or they were not based on a pedagogical model. The
following comparison will give an overview about
the differences between existing markup languages
and eLML.
It is important not to confuse eLML with stan-
dards like SCORM or IMS Content Package. These
standards are both supported by eLML and are only
used for interoperability of content between different
learning management systems (LMS). They do not
describe the content itself. See chapter 4.2 for com-
patibility of eLML with both standards.
5.1 LMML – Learning Material
Markup Language Framework
LMML, the Learning Material Markup Language
Framework started in 1999 at the University of Pas-
sau (Süss, 2001). LMML is a modular language with
the possibility to create new objects as needed. The
LMML content objects use different semantic ob-
jects like motivation, definition, remark, example
etc. In theory a very interesting approach also used
by GITTA but then dropped in eLML due to prag-
matic reasons as described in chapter 3.1. eLML
now offers content objects like box, popup, table, list
etc. whose appearance can be defined separately
using CSS. But the concept of semantic distinction
of objects still remains as a special attribute called
"class" where the author has the possibility to define
classes like "remark", "important" or "motivation"
and highlight them in the layout. LMML offers a
simple XSLT file for transforming a lesson into
HTML (no other format supported) but does not
have any authoring tools available on the website.
The code has not been updated since nearly two
years therefore it is not clear if the founder Christian
Süss will continue this project or if LMML was only
meant as a dissertation project (see Süss, 2005) and
will not be updated anymore.
5.2 ML3 – Multidimensional
Learning Objects and Modular
Lectures Markup
A very similar markup language is ML3, the Multi-
dimensional Learning Objects and Modular Lectures
Markup Language developed at the University of
Rostock together with 12 partner institutes in Ger-
many (ML3, 2005). On the content level it works
with similar educational objects as LMML (e.g. de-
scription, remark or example) therefore it seems that
there has been cooperation between these Universi-
ties. However, ML3 is far more developed and still
maintained. It also now offers an authoring tool
based on FrameMaker.
The very brief website describes the concept of
dimensions that is used in ML3. Basically a lesson
can be described in three axes: Intensity (basic, ad-
vanced, expert), target (teacher or learner) and de-
ELML, THE E-LESSON MARKUP LANGUAGE - Developing Sustainable e-Learning Content Using an Open Source
XML Framework
185

vice (online, print or slide). An author, while writing
a lesson, can define if a paragraph or illustration is
used in the basic and/or advanced version, only on
slides, visible for teachers only etc. eLML offers a
similar separation by target (author and student ver-
sion of a lesson) and by device (online or print). In
ML3 these options lead to a total of 18 possibilities
to present a lesson, so it is important that the author
does not loose track about what is shown in which
version and what not.
ML3 also offers the possibility to include and re-
use objects in different lessons. Therefore bibliogra-
phy and glossary data are stored in a database and
the same resource can be used in different lessons.
This is in theory a nice approach that has also been
used in GITTA, but was dropped in eLML. The
main reason was that one author would not accept a
definition of a certain term done by another author
from another institute. The authors usually want
their definition to appear in their lesson. So in reality
the reusability was not used at all. There were also
technical reasons for dropping this feature: Main-
taining a database is a lot more complicated than
storing the content directly within the XML file.
Furthermore validation (did the author really define
the term? did he list the cited book in the bibliogra-
phy? etc.) within the XML editor is only possible if
the content is stored within the XML file. There
were also practical reasons for dropping database
bindings: Lessons in plain XML files can be trans-
formed with every standard XML editor using stan-
dard XSLT 2.0 processors.
ML3 offers many possibilities to define self-
assessments: multiple choice, yes-no questions, es-
say etc. eLML did not implement these options at all
because we believe that tests usually need user-
tracking and therefore should be implemented within
an LMS. If not implemented directly in the LMS, it
is not possible to store students’ test-results and
grades and therefore eLML only offers basic support
for self-assessments.
To conclude, ML3 seems an interesting approach
and it will be interesting to see the development of
this markup language.
5.3 IMS Learning Design & EML
The Open University of the Netherlands developed
EML, the Educational Modelling Language, which
was then overtaken by the IMS consortium and is
now called the IMS Learning Design Specification.
This markup language is based on many different
behaviouristic, cognitive and constructivist ap-
proaches to learning and instructing. It concentrates
on the teaching-learning process using different
roles, activities etc. around e-Learning. The actual
content is stored in HTML and therefore this markup
language cannot be compared with eLML. In theory
it should be possible to use the IMS LD specification
for describing an e-Learning module and within that
module use eLML to describe the content, but this
has not been tested yet.
Other XML markup languages exist and they all
have their advantages and disadvantages. In the end
the decision for a specific language is mostly made
because of personal contacts to other users or au-
thors. Additionally, using XSLT allows the trans-
formation of a lesson from one XML format into
another XML format. Therefore if sustainability is a
major concern it is not too important which specific
XML markup language is used but that XML is used
at all. Because, unlike HTML where layout and con-
tent is mixed, XML offers the possibility to really
separate content from presentation. A major concern
when it comes to sustainability.
6 EXPERIENCES
Compared to other markup languages eLML has a
very pragmatic approach and an easy to learn struc-
ture using descriptive tag names. Authors experi-
enced with XML need less than half a day of train-
ing to be able to work with eLML. On the other
hand, the lack of WYSIWY authoring tools makes
eLML a rather difficult to learn markup language for
authors who never worked with XML. The planned
authoring tool due for summer 2006 will hopefully
fill this gap.
The very rigid GITTA XML structure (the ances-
tor of eLML) was loosened with the release of
eLML 1.0 and even more flexible with eLML 2.0.
Therefore, eLML can be used for different learning
scenarios as described in detail in chapter 2. On the
other hand, there is a constant dilemma between
having a structure strict enough to conform to a cer-
tain pedagogical model and the freedom authors
want while designing lessons. With eLML we found
a rather pragmatic approach to solve this problem.
The growing number of authors working with
eLML pushes the development and leads to new
features and new formats supported. Creating such
an “eLML community” was the main idea when
releasing the eLML as an open source framework. A
lot of time and money can be saved if many projects
work together using the same technical structure
instead of each project having to start from scratch.
WEBIST 2006 - E-LEARNING
186

7 CONCLUSION AND OUTLOOK
eLML is a proven and tested approach for the crea-
tion of sustainable e-Learning content and it is also a
strictly defined XML language. XML has the advan-
tage of structuring and labelling content. As a stu-
dent, in future it will be crucial to be able to find and
use different e-Learning resources like, for example,
the eLML-based GITTA lessons (Fisler, 2004) on
the World Wide Web. The Semantic Web efforts
provide promising technologies for e-Learning (Sto-
janovic et al, 2002). By supporting SCORM and
IMS Content Packages eLML goes in the right di-
rection. Research results how these SCORM Meta-
data can be integrated for e-Learning purposes are
presented by Qu (2004).
ACKNOLEDGEMENTS
The work reported in this paper has been supported
by the Swiss Virtual Campus (SVC) program under
project no. 2001-28 and 2004-32, as well as by con-
tributions of the University of Zurich (E-Learning
Center), and of the ETHZ FILEP fund. These con-
tributions are gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
URLs listed below were last accessed on February 7
th
06!
APA, 2005. The APA Style. American Psychological Assn.
Website, Washington DC. http://www.apastyle.org/
Apache FOP, 2001. Formatting Object Processor. Version
0.20.5. http://xml.apache.org/fop/
Fisler, Joël, 2004. GITTA website. Geography Department,
University of Zurich. http://www.gitta.info
Fisler, Joël, Bleisch, Susanne, Niederhuber, Monika, 2005.
Development of sustainable e-Learning content with
the open source eLesson Markup Language eLML.
In: ISPRS Workshop, Potsdam, June 2./3. 2005.
Gerson, S., 2000. ECLASS: Creating a Guide to Online
Course Development For Distance Learning Faculty.
Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration,
Vol. III, No. IV (Winter 2000). State University of
Western Georgia. http://www.westga.edu/
~distance/ojdla/winter34/gerson34.html
Holland, Matt, 2004. Citing References: Harvard System.
Bournemouth University. www.bournemouth.ac.uk-
/library/using/harvard_system.html
Horton, William, 2000. Designing Web-Based Training,
Wiley, New York.
IMS CP, 2000. Content Packaging Specification. IMS
Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
http://www.imsglobal.org/content/packaging/
IMS LOM, 2002. Learning Resource Metadata Specifica-
tion. IMS Global Learning Consortium, Inc.
http://www.imsglobal.org/metadata/
JAXFront, 2001. JAXFront - an XML Rendering Technol-
ogy. Xcentric GmbH, Zürich, Switzerland.
http://www.jaxfront.com/
ML3, 2005. Multidimensional Learning Objects and
Modular Lectures Markup Language website.
http://www.ml-3.org
Niederhuber, M., Heinimann, H. R., Hebel, B., 2005.
e-Learning basierte Fallstudien zur akademischen
Ausbildung in der Geoinformatik: Methodisches
Konzept, Umsetzung und Erfahrungen. Submitted to
the 3. Deutsche e-Learning Fachtagung Informatik,
13.-16. September 2005 in Rostock.
OLAT, 1999. Open Source LMS OLAT - Online Learning
And Training. Multimedia & E-Learning Services
(MELS) der Universität Zürich. http://www.olat.org/
SCORM, 2004. Sharable Content Object Reference
Model. Advanced Distributed Learning.
http://www.adlnet.org
Stojanovic, Ljiljana, Staab, Steffen, Studer, Rudi, 2002.
e-Learning based on the SemanticWeb,
http://lufgi9.informatik.rwth-
aachen.de/lehre/ws02/semDidDesign/lit/SemanticWeb
ELearning.pdf
Süss, Christian, Freitag, Burkhard, 2001. LMML Learning
Material Markup Language. IFIS Report 2001/03.
Süss, Christian, 2005. Eine Architektur für die
Wiederverwendung und Adaptation von e-Learning-
Inhalten, PhD-Thesis, University of Passau.
Qu, Changtao, Nejdl, Wolfgang, 2004. Integrating
XQuery-enabled SCORM XML Metadata Repositories
into an RDF-based E-Learning P2P Network.
Educational Technology & Society, 7 (2), 51-60.
To stay informed about eLML, visit
www.elml.ch or subscribe to the eLML Newsletter
by sending an email with the subject “subscribe” to
[e-mail].
ELML, THE E-LESSON MARKUP LANGUAGE - Developing Sustainable e-Learning Content Using an Open Source
XML Framework
187