I know that the theory was OER list members should discuss and debate but is there scope for the proposals (with agreement) being blogged somewhere? Or a twitter discussion? Organise one for a time next week?

On 14 Apr 2011, at 07:40, Suzanne Hardy <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

It is great to see so much discussion on these proposals. :)

I wonder, could our less technical colleagues comment on which ideas would appeal to users? I know that all the ideas the PORSCHE+ group took to the hackdays for example were based on real comments from real users, and it would be fantastic to think that whichever proposals are funded do reflect some aspects of user perceived needs.....

Suzanne

--
Suzanne Hardy
Senior Advisor (Information)
Higher Education Academy Subject Centre for 
Medicine, Dentistry and Veterinary Medicine
Newcastle University

email: [log in to unmask]
tel: +44 191 222 5888
fax: +44 191 222 5016

blog: www.medev.ac.uk/blog/suzannes-blog/
web: www.medev.ac.uk/
Twitter: twitter.com/hea_medev
Skype: glitt3rgirl

direct line: 0191 246 4550
mobile: 07790 905657

Visitors please come to 1-2 Claremont Terrace, NE2 4AE
_________________________________

eLearning in health conference: collaboration, sharing and sustainability
in the current environment 27-28 Jun 2011
http://www.medev.ac.uk/funding/workshops/243/view_workshop/

On 14 Apr 2011, at 01:47, Brandon Muramatsu wrote:

Ah, I was wondering if I was misinterpreting...

I think we're on the same page with the server, at least eventually. I think it comes down to scope and resources for this round. I'm not sure what sort of reporting is reasonable this round, as opposed to future iterations of the service. I see a bit of basic reporting, and that we'd discuss things via the community as we engage in the development and see what we can do.

The recommender/collaborative filtering bit is certainly possible, and we have working code for that (that entire Folksemantic.com thing). Once again I'm not sure about integration this pass.

Brandon

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 6:33 PM, Pat Lockley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

On 13 Apr 2011, at 22:48, Brandon Muramatsu <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

I'll just respond to Patrick's comments about CaPReT.

Brandon

On Wed, Apr 13, 2011 at 12:39 PM, Patrick Lockley <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

<snip>
Cut and Paste attribution

I was glad this mentioned Open Attribute :) We're pretty soon about to release an OpenAttribute tool for Wordpress and Drupal. So we are moving from being just about facilitating attribution and instead into encouraging the creation of properly licensed content. Interestingly, I asked if anyone thought an "attributed link" - say a get variable appended onto the URL - would be useful / worthwhile and no one replied. This was on the Wordpress list on JISCMAIL. Not sure if that is representative or not.

That's good to know. Let me start by saying I understand that it's probably doing exactly what it set out to do. Unfortunately, it doesn't do a lot of good on my WordPress sites now, I'm not using the full RDFa CC with attribution information, but I do have DC metadata being inserted into the header. That info should be pulled, probably. (And the only reason I run *that* plugin is that I am a reformed metadata person.)  So it's not as useful as it could be. And I run a separate plugin to put a statement of license in each article (once again without the RDFa).

The new OA plugin for wordpress does lots of different things to what the cc plugin does. It wraps some of it's functionality, but brings tonnes more. I can send you the git hub for it? All testing and feedback are handy.

I wonder the relative use in the wild of the CC generator with attribution information versus all CC licenses.

I guess (and I do not speak on behalf of openattribute, we don't really have a formal structure, let alone a spokesperson) that we are more about making it easier for people to attribute as a cultural change, not creating a goal of more attribution information. For example the plugins all allow for non-Rdfa attribution text. 

In the States we'd say six of one, half dozen of another. If you accept the premise that trying to track content that is cut and paste is a good thing, then you could go at it from the end user or the provider perspective. And then you have to look at the value to the user groups. 

We decided to approach this from the provider perspective -- which has potential value to both end users and the provider.

We have that saying here too :)

My English didn't get the point I was making well.

Current model

Tracked content tells server about cut and paste. So user knows and site with content knows.

Model with centralised pot

Tracked content tells a distinct central server about cut and paste. This then allows comparative resource tracking, cross pollination of datasets (users who used this resource also used....) and a few other things. Using the silo as an SI unit, this is a less silo like system. 

I tried to build an Xpert web buggy thing to do this - but found making one work in all documents (pasted into word say) was pretty much impossible. Maybe a central service gets round this?

So I guess my question there is what document destinations *should* be supported

Agreed. Anyone got mimetypes of OER as percentages?

Pat