LOR Overview and BCcampus Initiative Scott Leslie July 28, 2005
Outline <ul><li>State of Play in Repositories </li></ul><ul><li>Possible approaches and common features </li></ul><ul><li>...
LO/LORs on the Gartner Hype Cycle 2004 We were here
Maturity of Problem LORs address  <ul><li>LORs still struggling to define precisely the problem that is trying to be solve...
Maturity of Problem LORs address  <ul><li>LORs getting better at defining the problem they are trying to solve </li></ul><...
Maturity of LOR Market <ul><li>The market for learning object repository technology is very immature and has some fundamen...
LOR Market Maturing…Slowly <ul><li>While the market for learning object repository technology is still quite immature </li...
Open Source LORs <ul><li>Very few examples (outside of library world) of open source repository software that has been wid...
Open Source LORs <ul><li>Still too few examples of open source repository software that has been widely taken up by commun...
LO/LORs on the Gartner Hype Cycle 2005!
Some phenomena shaping directions of LORs <ul><li>Service Oriented Architecture/Approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Modularizatio...
Seeing some evolution from ‘Repository as Application’…
To ‘Repository as Service and Application’
Types of Repository Approaches we’ve seen in Edutools project <ul><li>‘ Referatories’ </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Classic’ Reposit...
<ul><li>We found that the defining characteristics of these systems, in terms of widespread feature support, were: </li></...
<ul><li>2005, we found that the defining characteristics of these systems, in terms of widespread feature support, were: <...
<ul><li>Overall, we found support lacking for the following features across all of the products: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Syn...
<ul><li>In 2005, generally we found support lacking for the following features across all of the products: </li></ul><ul><...
Edutools Research Results <ul><li>More details available at </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.edutools.info/lor/   </li></u...
BCcampus LOR Project <ul><li>Began as joint project between BCcampus, Open School BC, later joined by Alberta Online Conso...
About the Organizations <ul><li>BCcampus </li></ul><ul><li>established in 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>mandate to provide Britis...
Motivations for Starting the Project <ul><li>BCcampus </li></ul><ul><li>administer system-wide Online Program Development ...
<ul><li>Initial search led us to partner with University of Calgary around software named ‘Apollo’.  </li></ul><ul><li>7 m...
First Phase Outcomes <ul><li>Metadata profiles for both K-12 and Post-secondary sectors were developed </li></ul><ul><ul><...
Phase II <ul><li>Recently issued a RFP for a repository system </li></ul><ul><li>May 17 - Decision on successful bid </li>...
Key Attributes of System <ul><ul><li>Handle all types of content, from simple links, to individual images and binary files...
Additional Goals of the Project <ul><li>Provide *easy* means for instructors and institutions to contribute new items </li...
 
 
 
 
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

LOR Characteristics and Considerations

1,463

Published on

Invited talk for Simon Fraser University, June 2006

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,463
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • LOR Characteristics and Considerations

    1. 1. LOR Overview and BCcampus Initiative Scott Leslie July 28, 2005
    2. 2. Outline <ul><li>State of Play in Repositories </li></ul><ul><li>Possible approaches and common features </li></ul><ul><li>BCcampus Repository Initiative </li></ul>
    3. 3. LO/LORs on the Gartner Hype Cycle 2004 We were here
    4. 4. Maturity of Problem LORs address <ul><li>LORs still struggling to define precisely the problem that is trying to be solved with them? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it discovery and sharing of resources? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the management of content development? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the facilitation of content re-use? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the creation of communities of practitioners? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the archiving of learning materials? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the ingestion and re-composition of complex multimedia objects? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All of the above? </li></ul></ul>2004
    5. 5. Maturity of Problem LORs address <ul><li>LORs getting better at defining the problem they are trying to solve </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it discovery and sharing of resources? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the management of content development? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the facilitation of content re-use? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the creation of communities of practitioners? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the archiving of learning materials? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is it the ingestion and re-composition of complex multimedia objects? </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>All of the above? </li></ul></ul>2005
    6. 6. Maturity of LOR Market <ul><li>The market for learning object repository technology is very immature and has some fundamental risks involved </li></ul><ul><ul><li>unclear how large a market there will ever be for repository technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>vendors are trying to amortize their R&D efforts across too few customers and too short a period leading to hefty licensing prices considering the actual technology involved </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>if the problem is expanded to include the LCMS field, it becomes a broader and deeper market, but pricing for corporate-style LCMS out of line with higher ed expectations and abilities to pay </li></ul></ul>2004
    7. 7. LOR Market Maturing…Slowly <ul><li>While the market for learning object repository technology is still quite immature </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Had a number large RFPs and purchases occur over the last 12 months </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>UNAM system in Mexico – 1million+ seats for Harvest Road </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Flordia Virtual School System – also Harvest Road </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>JISC JORUM Repository – UK-wide - Intrallect </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>BC/Alberta RFP – The Learning Edge </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Starting to see some leaders emerge and certain different approaches to sharing/re-use problem (DAM, LCMS, LOR, IR) </li></ul></ul>2005
    8. 8. Open Source LORs <ul><li>Very few examples (outside of library world) of open source repository software that has been widely taken up by community of implementers </li></ul><ul><li>Many initial projects were developed institutionally on soft money and haven’t been transitioned that well to being inclusive ‘open source’ projects </li></ul>2004
    9. 9. Open Source LORs <ul><li>Still too few examples of open source repository software that has been widely taken up by community of implementers </li></ul><ul><li>Lots of the money is drying up/moving on to other areas </li></ul><ul><li>As problem space gets better understood, people looking to related technologies (Content Mgmt Systems, P2P, referatories, IR) as alternative approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Large consortial approachs to LORs, where instead of sharing risk through open sourcing, sharing risk through size of project team and initiative </li></ul>2005
    10. 10. LO/LORs on the Gartner Hype Cycle 2005!
    11. 11. Some phenomena shaping directions of LORs <ul><li>Service Oriented Architecture/Approaches </li></ul><ul><li>Modularization </li></ul><ul><li>E-Learning Frameworks </li></ul><ul><li>Course Management Systems </li></ul><ul><li>Peer-to-Peer Computing </li></ul><ul><li>‘Social Software’ </li></ul>
    12. 12. Seeing some evolution from ‘Repository as Application’…
    13. 13. To ‘Repository as Service and Application’
    14. 14. Types of Repository Approaches we’ve seen in Edutools project <ul><li>‘ Referatories’ </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Classic’ Repository </li></ul><ul><li>Learning Content Management System </li></ul><ul><li>Generic Content Management System </li></ul><ul><li>Digital Asset Management </li></ul><ul><li>Institutional Repository </li></ul><ul><li>Repository as part of Course Management vendor solution </li></ul><ul><li>Repository as “Service” </li></ul>
    15. 15. <ul><li>We found that the defining characteristics of these systems, in terms of widespread feature support, were: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for searching and browsing of records </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metatagging tools, and standards-based schema support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for federation and harvesting </li></ul></ul>2004
    16. 16. <ul><li>2005, we found that the defining characteristics of these systems, in terms of widespread feature support, were: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for searching and browsing of records </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Metatagging tools, and standards-based schema support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support for federation and harvesting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>More support for content packaging and aggregation, content management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Increased support for syndication, and notification </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. <ul><li>Overall, we found support lacking for the following features across all of the products: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Syndication and Notification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Community & Evaluation features (e.g. evaluation system, wish lists and context of usage illustrators) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Time-based Media support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content Aggregation and Packaging tool </li></ul></ul>2004
    18. 18. <ul><li>In 2005, generally we found support lacking for the following features across all of the products: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Time-based Media support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>XML Content Supports </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>DRM, specifically Payment and Fulfillment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>User Profiles </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Edutools Research Results <ul><li>More details available at </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http://www.edutools.info/lor/ </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. BCcampus LOR Project <ul><li>Began as joint project between BCcampus, Open School BC, later joined by Alberta Online Consortium </li></ul><ul><li>Project began in February 2004 </li></ul><ul><li>Joint project to select and implement (open source) learning object repository software </li></ul><ul><li>Project will result in 2 repositories for BC, one for the K-12 system, one within the post-secondary </li></ul>
    21. 21. About the Organizations <ul><li>BCcampus </li></ul><ul><li>established in 2002 </li></ul><ul><li>mandate to provide British Columbia learners with a web-based access point to online learning programs and services delivered by the 26 post-secondary institutions themselves </li></ul><ul><li>OpenSchoolBC (OSBC) </li></ul><ul><li>provider of K-12 distance educational materials </li></ul><ul><li>Operating as a managed partnership between the New Westminster SD No. 40 and the Queen's Printer of B.C. </li></ul>
    22. 22. Motivations for Starting the Project <ul><li>BCcampus </li></ul><ul><li>administer system-wide Online Program Development Fund </li></ul><ul><li>fund mandates content be shareable with rest of system </li></ul><ul><li>‘ BCcommons’ or CreativeCommons license </li></ul><ul><li>OSBC </li></ul><ul><li>transition from older print and full course-based models to more atomic ‘learning objects’ </li></ul><ul><li>both a way to distribute their own content and a service to other K-12 publishers and school boards to share content </li></ul><ul><li>run as a cost recovery service </li></ul>
    23. 23. <ul><li>Initial search led us to partner with University of Calgary around software named ‘Apollo’. </li></ul><ul><li>7 months later, we cancelled our involvement due to the lack of progress in deploying a solution </li></ul><ul><li>But not all was lost… </li></ul>Project History…
    24. 24. First Phase Outcomes <ul><li>Metadata profiles for both K-12 and Post-secondary sectors were developed </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Based on Cancore application profiles, with some variations on vocabulary to reflect local needs </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Workflow pattern established for both K-12 and Post-secondary sectors </li></ul><ul><li>Interfaces for both the K-12 and Post-secondary repositories have been prototyped and can easily be implemented on new software </li></ul>
    25. 25. Phase II <ul><li>Recently issued a RFP for a repository system </li></ul><ul><li>May 17 - Decision on successful bid </li></ul><ul><li>Selected The Learning Edge ( http://www.thelearningedge.com.au/ ) an LCMS originally developed in Australia </li></ul><ul><li>Initial deployment up by October 2005 </li></ul>
    26. 26. Key Attributes of System <ul><ul><li>Handle all types of content, from simple links, to individual images and binary files, and on up to exports of WebCT courses and IMS Content Packages </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide searching and browsing using recognizable B.C. K-12 categories and terminology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Host both restricted content (that would require a subscription or some other condition to be met) and content open to all </li></ul></ul>
    27. 27. Additional Goals of the Project <ul><li>Provide *easy* means for instructors and institutions to contribute new items </li></ul><ul><li>Provide support for cataloguing items so that they are easily findable </li></ul><ul><li>Include mechanisms for user evaluation and feedback </li></ul><ul><li>Integrates with delivery environments (e.g. CMS) </li></ul><ul><li>Tracking of usage, at very least of downloads, ideally of use within courses </li></ul>
    1. A particular slide catching your eye?

      Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

    ×