Technical Infrastructure For Open Content Jisccetis 261108

432 views
398 views

Published on

Amber Thomas presentation at cetis08

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
432
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Technical Infrastructure For Open Content Jisccetis 261108

  1. 1. Technical Infrastructure for Open Content JISC CETIS OER Session 26/11/08 v0.1 Amber Thomas, JISC [email_address]
  2. 2. Outline <ul><li>technical requirements for projects </li></ul><ul><li>then </li></ul><ul><li>some issues and ideas to get us thinking </li></ul>
  3. 3. Technical Requirements for Projects <ul><li>All content should be stored in Institutional Repositories </li></ul><ul><li>All content should be IMS Content Packaged </li></ul><ul><li>All content should be released under a custom JISC licence </li></ul><ul><li>All content should be tagged with full UK Lom metadata </li></ul>
  4. 4. Requirements: 1 <ul><li>All content should be stored in Institutional Repositories </li></ul><ul><li>Content can be anywhere (and in JorumOpen) </li></ul><ul><li>BUT consider: </li></ul><ul><li>how easily discoverable is the content? [public VLEs? slideshare?] </li></ul><ul><li>how stable are the URLs? </li></ul><ul><li>how easily can you update and manage it? </li></ul><ul><li>how can you track usage? [google analytics? social bookmarking?] </li></ul>
  5. 5. Requirements: 2 <ul><li>All content should be IMS Content Packaged </li></ul><ul><li>Content can be in any format </li></ul><ul><li>BUT consider: </li></ul><ul><li>how accessible is the content? </li></ul><ul><li>how easy is it to edit the content? [youtube? slideshare? flash player?] </li></ul><ul><li>how long/how well will the format be supported? [msoffice versions?] </li></ul>
  6. 6. Requirements: 3 <ul><li>All content should be released under a custom JISC licence </li></ul><ul><li>Content can be released under a creative commons licence </li></ul><ul><li>(or similar) </li></ul><ul><li>BUT consider: </li></ul><ul><li>how will authors know whether they own the content they create? </li></ul><ul><li>how will third party content use be identified, checked and permitted? </li></ul><ul><li>how will the appropriate licences be chosen and communicated? </li></ul><ul><li>how will service providers handle the rights issues? [service T&Cs] </li></ul><ul><li>how will other legal issues be addressed? [performance rights? consent for filming lectures?] </li></ul>
  7. 7. Requirements: 4 <ul><li>All content should be tagged with full UK Lom metadata </li></ul><ul><li>Content can be minimally tagged </li></ul><ul><li>BUT consider: </li></ul><ul><li>how will you ensure attribution if you don’t include the author name and licence terms? </li></ul><ul><li>how will you describe the content to a learner and/or a teacher? </li></ul><ul><li>how will you tag the content by subject/topic? [controlled vocabularies? user-generated tags?] </li></ul>
  8. 8. Requirements: 5 <ul><li>Deposit of objects/links to JorumOpen </li></ul><ul><li>BECAUSE </li></ul><ul><li>JorumOpen will showcase current practices in the UK </li></ul><ul><li>We need to ensure that all content produced under this programme is surfaced to the open web, with no excuses </li></ul><ul><li>HEFCE investment needs visible results </li></ul><ul><li>There’s potential for building rich services on top of an aggregation, so we need to find out what the aggregation looks like </li></ul><ul><li>It’s better to start with a central model and move to distributed rather than start with distributed and hope to aggregate it later </li></ul>
  9. 9. Some issues and ideas <ul><li>Stewardship in the web2.0 world </li></ul><ul><li>My stuff on the web </li></ul><ul><li>Rights chains </li></ul><ul><li>Persistence and linked content </li></ul><ul><li>Sustainability and business models </li></ul><ul><li>Who can pay for the effort and technologies to do this? </li></ul><ul><li>What evidence do they need to prove its worth doing? </li></ul><ul><li>Network-level stuff </li></ul><ul><li>Aggregating metadata </li></ul><ul><li>Collections registries </li></ul><ul><li>Measures and metrics </li></ul><ul><li>It’s not just about content </li></ul><ul><li>Pulling metadata down from the cloud </li></ul><ul><li>Content in social networks </li></ul>
  10. 10. Approaches to Socio-Technical Design <ul><li>Do we design … </li></ul><ul><li>Top down </li></ul><ul><li>Bottom up </li></ul><ul><li>Elegant architectures </li></ul><ul><li>Evolutionary models </li></ul><ul><li>Maybe … </li></ul><ul><li>stitching together what works </li></ul><ul><li>common workflows </li></ul><ul><li>commonly used tools and services </li></ul><ul><li>80/20 rule </li></ul>
  11. 11. So … <ul><li>Scope for technical infrastructure work </li></ul><ul><li>Identify minimum requirements for releasing content into the wild (metadata, persistent identities) </li></ul><ul><li>Work with existing tools, platforms and practices and identify ways to improve them (easier to use, easier to integrate, more consistent metadata, more informed implementations) </li></ul><ul><li>Track and monitor release of content and its use (for accountability, for understanding effective release methods, benefits to authors) </li></ul><ul><li>Identify gaps and opportunities </li></ul><ul><li>Collate support and good practice in all of the above </li></ul><ul><li>… Get involved! </li></ul>

×