 |
 |
Hi Dan, Thanks for your comments. I'll leave it to the proposal authors to address the specific questions you've raised. Regarding the lack of bids for Strand 1 and 2, yes it is perplexing, and I'm about to drop a mail to the list to see if we can uncover why no body felt inclined to bid. Thanks again for your feedback! Cheers Lorna On 14 Apr 2011, at 14:30, Daniel Rehak wrote: > Hi Folks > > I'm going to put comments on all projects into one place; too hard to find which of the existing threads to use. Sorry for yet another thread. Appologies in advance if I've misunderstood your submissions. > > I'll concur with Lorna's blog comment that it's unfortunate that there were no submissions for the other two strands. Given all the prior discussion on these topics, I'm a bit perplexed that no one had ideas to submit. Overall I was hoping to see more high risk, high reward ideas. > > Also, as I general comment, I'd like to see project results released under the most liberal licenses possible, e.g., any data your tool creates is CC0, code as Apache like vs GPL. > > Vocabulary Tools. This one looks pretty "incremental" to me, at least from the development tasks. Along with the comments about not relying of curated metadata going forth as a prime model for content description, I'm equally concerned about investments in controlled vocabularies. I'm really not sure how useful a vocabulary tool would be. > > I do like the parts about general tagging tools, microformats. I would like to know a little about comparisons to other existing vocabulary tools in the space (e.g., vocman, open metadata registry) to understand what's new and different. > > > OER Bookmarking. Taking a very parochial, Learning Registry view, the first thing we would do is harvest all these bookmarks and put them into LR. I'd take the paradata from the bookmarks, and the fact that the item was booked marked as additional paradata. We've been talking about doing this with other bookmarking services (Delicious, Dingo), so this would be just another to add. What I'm really questioning is the ability for the community to support yet another silo of data. > > I am interested in the DLM and playlists aspects of the proposal. > > OAI-ORE. I agree with the need to describe aggregations in some form vs. individual objects and OAI-ORE is worth considering. But I believe putting an aggregation into an OAI-ORE format should be pretty straight forward. The bigger question I have relates to what happens when you have multiple different aggregations. How can you relate the use of one piece of content in one aggregation to its use in another? Do we end up with multiple ORE aggregations? Do we try to build an uber aggregation? Is just storing individual relations in a repository better than trying to maintain the whole (which might be harder)? OAI-ORE is all about the aggregation, and doing things like exchange, deposit, preservation, ... on the whole. > > Beyond the problem being solve, I find the narrative to be focused on a lot of process and to be very light on the technical deliverables: "API services to model Open Educational Resources as OAI-ORE > resources and to translate". I'd like to know more. > > > CaPReT. Again from the Learning Registry perspective, getting usage data is something we're interested in. Like the bookmarks project, I'd think about taking to code, ripping out the back end server and just dumping the data into LR. > > I would like to better understand how this fits into OERGlue. > > - Dan > > -- > Daniel R. Rehak, Ph.D. > > ADL Technical Advisor > Skype: drrehak > Email: [log in to unmask] > [log in to unmask] > Twitter: @danielrehak > Web: learningregistry.org > adlnet.gov > lsal.org > Google Voice: +1 412 301 3040 > Tel: +1 412 931 7317 > Work: +1 412 931 7319 > Mob: +1 412 805 7683 -- Lorna M. Campbell JISC CETIS Assistant Director University of Strathclyde Glasgow Email: [log in to unmask] Phone: +44141 548 3072 Skype: lorna120768 The University of Strathclyde is a charitable body, registered in Scotland, number SC015263.