I'd agree that a broader approach to metadata would be useful, but
then with content degradation / alternative forms I worry if metadata
even works with it anymore (is a mobile phone version just an
alternate entity, a sub-entity, or an entity in it's own right?)

Xpert supports searching in 14 different ways. Most of these are also
guaranteed bot-free. I wonder what standard other log files will
conform too (Xpert seems to the be the only service which has shared
it's search data?).

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:02 PM, Sarah Currier <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Excellent point re Project 1 Pat- I had assumed going in that there would
> need to be analysis in this project around the issue of what metadata fields
> and vocabularies managers had included and what they'd wished they could've
> included; how they've felt impeded by software or by the metadata standards
> available- that was kind of the approach taken when we were gathering use
> cases to develop a new DC Education Application Profile, to find out not
> only what folk are doing but what they wish they could do.
>
> I would also like to do a bit of analysis around how and why they made their
> decisions (e.g. actual user consultation of any kind, instinct, past
> experience, etc.).
>
> I suspect given the scope of the project, these are things that would need
> to be touched on via a survey, possibly with supporting interviews, but it
> looks like the main bit of research required is what metadata is *actually*
> created, so this may also be a recommendation for more in-depth checking in
> a further project once the data is in.
>
> Re Project 2- I see what you're saying with that, but I think it would be
> nice just to have a big fat bit of data with analysis *just* on search to
> start with (maybe browse as well for repositories or sites that offer that
> as a way in).. since we're looking for what people are looking for,
> regardless of whether they can actually find it. I think your suggestion is
> a useful but different bit of investigation.
>
> S.
>
>
> On 5 April 2011 12:52, Pat Lockley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> (Please note I am now subbed from my personal email address, so I can
>> comment with added Winston)
>>
>> Bid 1 - "that collection managers deem to be important" - that worries
>> me a little, as collection managers are often hamstrung by what their
>> system can do. I've got a half side project with two repository
>> managers / support staff looking at an ideal feature wish list. One of
>> the key things that's come up (and I share for free) is whether
>> content will work on a mobile device / level of supported platform
>> independence  (and if not, is there an alternative piece - i.e.
>> content negotiation and then, possibly, controlled content
>> degradation). There is no support for this in either of the system's
>> they use at present.
>>
>> So if I start with the metadata these collection managers present,
>> that does not seem equal to "deem to be important".
>>
>> Bid 2 - Wonder if going to / stopping at search logs in enough.
>> Searched then visited, searched then tweeted. Not all repos have
>> enough content to merit a search facility?
>>
>> Be interesting to know which repositories had agreed to share for bid 2?
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 11:41 AM, Sarah Currier <[log in to unmask]>
>> wrote:
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > Friday is looming: the deadline for sharing our proposals for the 3 JISC
>> > OER
>> > technical mini-projects. I've been wondering how others are approaching
>> > this. I'm facing this innovative open approach to bidding with some
>> > trepidation- for me, it's my livelihood, so it seems counter-intuitive
>> > to
>> > put ideas out there where the people I might be be competing with for
>> > funding can see them. A tension that echoes right across the open
>> > education
>> > domain I guess.
>> >
>> > On the other hand, mini projects (1) and (2) are so dear to my heart
>> > that I
>> > can't but press forward! To me the intent behind them represents the
>> > culmination of work that many of us have been trying to do for some
>> > years
>> > now. Well, it's a culmination and, I hope, the start of a new, more
>> > productive level of research in this area. If *someone* does it and does
>> > it
>> > well, I'll be very happy even if I'm momentarily grumpy that it's not
>> > me!
>> >
>> > I am talking with another independent consultant, Dr. Ian Piper at
>> > Tellura,
>> > about possible approaches to all 3 mini-projects. Ian and I have been
>> > working together for the past year (and Ian was around a lot longer than
>> > that) on a large-scale schools-level initiative developing 10s of 1000s
>> > of
>> > openly available resources for teachers.
>> >
>> > We are both very keen on building on that project's work in open
>> > vocabularies; quality assurance for metadata; and content and metadata
>> > frameworks that are linked data- and Semantic Web-friendly.
>> >
>> > Ian's history is (among other things) within the English schools and FE
>> > sector, while I've been involved for some years in HE educational
>> > metadata,
>> > as well as being involved in the Dublin Core Education Community. In
>> > DC-Ed
>> > we tried gathering use cases to see what folk were doing with
>> > educational
>> > metadata on the ground (not just OER use cases), but it was clear to me
>> > then
>> > that a larger-scale survey like mini-project (1) would be useful.
>> >
>> > I know Ian has a great idea for the 3rd, open mini-project: to further
>> > develop his openvocabs tools: http://openvocabs.org/ - in order to
>> > ensure
>> > they meet the requirements of those developing and working with OERs.
>> > (Ian
>> > is at a meeting today so he agreed I could mention him in passing- he's
>> > on
>> > this list and will be able to answer questions himself). However, we're
>> > both
>> > sure that there will be a bunch of excellent ideas and tools coming
>> > forward
>> > for the 3rd mini-project.
>> >
>> > For me, I am keen on the first 2 mini-projects, and Ian has the
>> > technical
>> > tools and expertise to help me with that side of those (I'm the semantic
>> > analysis person). On the other hand, there could be someone out there
>> > planning an excellent approach to the first 2 projects, and it would be
>> > more
>> > feasible for me to collaborate with them, if needed?
>> >
>> > Anyway, I just thought it would be an idea to put this out there and see
>> > what comes back. Is everyone else preparing perfectly formed bids that
>> > they
>> > are going to post on this list on Friday? Is anyone looking for a
>> > collaborator or two? Or is everyone thinking "I hope someone else will
>> > bid
>> > for this because this work needs doing?".
>> >
>> > In any case, I look forward to discussion on this over the next couple
>> > of
>> > weeks once proposals are in.
>> >
>> > Best wishes,
>> > Sarah
>> > --
>> > Sarah Currier
>> >
>> > Sarah Currier Consultancy Ltd.
>> > EdTech | Resource Sharing | Web 2.0 | Metadata | Repositories
>> >
>> > w: http://www.sarahcurrier.com/
>> > e: [log in to unmask]
>> > t: +44 (0)7980855801
>> >
>> > LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/sarahcurrier
>> > Skype: morageyrie
>> >
>> > ________________________________
>
> --
> Sarah Currier
>
> Sarah Currier Consultancy Ltd.
> EdTech | Resource Sharing | Web 2.0 | Metadata | Repositories
>
> w: http://www.sarahcurrier.com/
> e: [log in to unmask]
> t: +44 (0)7980855801
>
> LinkedIn: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/sarahcurrier
> Skype: morageyrie
>
> ________________________________
>