Using DSpace as a LOR


Published on

Talk giving to the ed tech group of the Council of Pacific and Prairie University Libraries, May 2006, on the feasability of using DSpace to distribute learning resources.

Published in: Economy & Finance, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Using DSpace as a LOR

    1. 1. Challenges to Implementing DSpace as a LOR Scott Leslie for COPPUL Distance Education Group May 30, 2006
    2. 2. Outline <ul><li>What a ‘classic’ LOR is ‘supposed’ to do </li></ul><ul><li>DSpace-specific challenges as a LOR </li></ul><ul><li>General challenges and pitfalls for LORs </li></ul>
    3. 3. In general, LORs appear to <ul><li>Store actual resources, not just metadata </li></ul><ul><li>Be part of a CMS/LMS-centric paradigm </li></ul><ul><li>Deal with (hopefully) volatile content </li></ul><ul><li>Contain diverse stuff (as no one really knows what a Learning Object is anyways.) </li></ul>
    4. 4. Edutools Comparative Framework <ul><li>Discovery Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Aggregation Tools </li></ul><ul><li>Community & Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>Meta-tagging </li></ul><ul><li>Content Management </li></ul><ul><li>Digital Rights Management & Fulfillment </li></ul><ul><li>Presentation and Consortia Issues </li></ul><ul><li>Integration and Interoperability </li></ul><ul><li>Technical Considerations </li></ul>cf. http:// /
    5. 5. Evaluative Framework: Details <ul><li>Discovery Tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Searching </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Browsing </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Syndication & Notification </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Aggregation Tools </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Personal Collections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Content Aggregator and Packaging Tool </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Community & Evaluation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation System </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Context Usage Illustrators </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wish Lists </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. <ul><li>Meta-tagging </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Metadata Markup Tool </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Schema Support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Indexing Workflow Support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Import and Export Tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Unique Identifier Support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Content Management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Authoring and Publishing Workflow Support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Version Control & Archiving Functions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authoring tools </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Digital Rights Management & Fulfillment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Digital Rights Management </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Payment and Fulfillment </li></ul></ul>Evaluative Framework: Details(2)
    7. 7. <ul><li>Presentation and Consortia Issues </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Customized Look and Feel </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Internationalization (I18n) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Multiple Collections </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Media Transformation and Display </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Integration and Interoperability </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Federation and Harvesting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Course Management Integration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>API and Web Service support </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Technical Considerations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Authentication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Authorization & Personalization </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Usage reporting </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Operating System </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Application/Database Server Requirements </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Scalability </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Support </li></ul></ul>Evaluative Framework: Details (3)
    8. 8. <ul><li>Challenges for DSpace as a LOR </li></ul>
    9. 9. ‘ Perceived’ Shortcomings of DSpace <ul><li>Limited metadata schema support </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of support for federated searching </li></ul><ul><li>Lack of useful browseable subject classification </li></ul><ul><li>No IMS Content Package support </li></ul><ul><li>Limited Multi-page Website support </li></ul><ul><li>Multi-contributor workflows </li></ul><ul><li>Versioning and content management issues </li></ul><ul><li>Community evaluation, community building </li></ul><ul><li>DSpace as a service </li></ul><ul><li>Others? </li></ul>
    10. 10. Metadata Schema Support <ul><li>Issue: DSpace currently supports Dublin Core with limited qualifications, whilst most other LORs have used IEEE LOM </li></ul><ul><li>Possible Mitigations: </li></ul><ul><li>Implement LOM in DSpace </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Crosswalks </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disregard, as most of LOM not used anyways </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul>
    11. 11. Federated Searching <ul><li>Issue: Dpsace supports OAI-PMH, a harvesting model, but not a ‘federated search’ mechanism either between DSpace instances or with other repository software </li></ul><ul><li>Possible Mitigations: </li></ul><ul><li>Implement SQI or one of the other federated search interfaces </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Use SRU/SRW as mechanism to federate search </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OKI OSIDs </li></ul><ul><ul><li>http:// </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Disregard, harvestability is enough/better anyways </li></ul>
    12. 12. Browseable Subject Classification <ul><li>Issue: Currently DSpace only supports browsing by Title, Author and Date, and the only limited way to structure by subject is through ‘Collections’ </li></ul><ul><li>Possible Mitigations: </li></ul><ul><li>use ‘keywords’ field for either constrained or unconstrained (folksonomic) approach; build interface to ‘browse’ by keywords </li></ul><ul><li>disregard problem in favour of ‘search’ as main method to retrieve items </li></ul>
    13. 13. IMS Content Packages <ul><li>Issue: DSpace currently treats IMS Content Packages as binary ‘blobs.’ They need to be previewable on the server, and any existing metadata consumable </li></ul><ul><li>Possible Mitigations: </li></ul><ul><li>work being done in CWSpace to handle Content Packages, or promise of system extensibility in v 2.0 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>see http:// </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li> highlight&value =IMS </li></ul></ul>
    14. 14. Multi-Page Websites <ul><li>Issue: Many ‘learning objects’ are actually multi-file websites; these need to be EASILY uploaded ‘en masse’ AND EASILY assessable by potential users </li></ul><ul><li>Possible Mitigations: </li></ul><ul><li>Upload each file of the site individually using multiple upload controls (ICKK!) </li></ul><ul><li>?? </li></ul>
    15. 15. Multi-contributor workflows <ul><li>Issue: Not every object has just one contributor, and not every submitter has all the required info nor will for all time </li></ul><ul><li>Possible Mitigations: </li></ul><ul><li>Disregard, hold to single submitter-to-single-resource model and use moderation as mechanism to add more metadata </li></ul><ul><li>?? </li></ul>
    16. 16. Versioning and content management <ul><li>Issue: DSpace has clunky support for multiple versions of content </li></ul><ul><li>Possible Mitigations: </li></ul><ul><li>currently proposed DSpace solution (manually link multiple records together, use relation field) </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>?? </li></ul>
    17. 17. Community Feedback <ul><li>Issue: DSpace has limited support for the community to express the judgments of value of any piece of content </li></ul><ul><li>Possible Mitigations: </li></ul><ul><li>Add these on through third party tools or possibly extensions to DSpace </li></ul>
    18. 18. DSpace as a service <ul><li>Issue: LOR content needs to be consumed in CMS, accessed by authoring tools </li></ul><ul><li>Possible Mitigations: </li></ul><ul><li>“ Lightweight Network Interface (for CWSpace)” / WebDav stuff </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>OKI OSIDs / Sakai Integration </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. Summary - Specific Challenges <ul><li>If you deploy DSpace “out of the box” as a LOR, then </li></ul><ul><li>you may find users have a difficult time assessing the usefulness of certain types of content </li></ul><ul><li>you may have some interoperability issues with other LORs </li></ul><ul><li>you may have some challenges offering access to the repository contents as a service to specific LMS or authoring tools </li></ul><ul><li>the system may prove cumbersome to working with volatile content or typical learning content authoring workflows </li></ul>
    20. 20. Some Important Projects for Dspace as a LOR <ul><li>DSpace 2.0 Proposal </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>CWSpace (Using DSpace for OpenCourseWare) </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>d+ (Distributed e-Learning Resources Discovery) </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Using DSpace as a LOR mailing list </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>(seems to have disappeared, contact Alan Wolf, University of Wisconsin; Louse Ratliff, UCLA for more info) </li></ul></ul></ul>
    21. 21. Some existing LORs using DSpace <ul><li> </li></ul><ul><li> </li></ul><ul><ul><li> </li></ul></ul><ul><li> </li></ul>
    22. 22. General Issues for LOR Implementers <ul><li>The high cost of metadata / Self-service questionable </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual Property/DRM challenges </li></ul><ul><li>LOs and increasingly questioned LCMS/LMS paradigm </li></ul><ul><li>LO/LORs ignoring innovations from social software </li></ul><ul><li>‘ Reusability’ Paradox of LOs themselves </li></ul><ul><li>If LORs are the answer, what was the problem again? </li></ul>
    23. 23. At the end of the day… <ul><li>What were the original goals behind Learning Object Repositories / Learning Objects? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Share learning resources and have them reused to </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>increase quality of learning experience </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>decrease cost of producing learning content </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Help make resources findable and identifiable that were formerly not being found or well identified </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Make clear what people can do with the resources and give them access to resources they are allowed to use </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Are there LORs which are achieving this? Which ones? What’s missing from the ones which aren’t doing this? Time? Training? A different paradigm? </li></ul>