Hi Scott,
Thanks for your criticism.
On 13/04/11 14:54, Scott Wilson wrote:
> Actually, on re-reading it, it doesn't look like a repository. Buggered if I know what it actually is though. Some bits seem to be about putting stuff in a repository, taking it out again, and putting it into another one. Presumably so you can take it out again more easily or something.
In fact, this is fundamentally not the purpose of the proposal or of the
OAI-ORE standard - in describing an OER as an aggregation of individual,
constituent resources each at their own unique location it is then not
necessary to duplicate that data across repositories - the resources can
accessed by referral. It is this which will very much support the
distributed, publish anywhere environment of which Lorna mentioned.
> (This, btw, is my usual experience when reading anything to do with OAI-ORE, so may indicate a deficiency with my brain rather than the bid)
>
> On a more serious note, OER is about teachers and learners. I know these are technical projects but we should still attempt to explain benefits in terms that can be understood by a wider audience. I can imagine myself trying to explain the point of the other projects to lecturers and students; I can't with this one.
>
A clear advantage to lecturers is that when a resource is updated each
aggregation referring to that resource will be referring to the current
version, not a duplicated, outdated version; therefore, the advantage
then to students is that they will not be delivered an outdated
version. This is one of the key principles, actually, which underpins
the Web.
> - If its just a case of more metadata => more cool tools, fair enough. But give some really good examples - and consider building rough demos of some of those rather than spending all the time on plumbing.
Here, I'll respectfully disagree - the 'plumbing', as you call it, is
absolutely where to concentrate within the scope of this proposal. This
is a technical proposal which intends to implement an open standard in
order to address the need to describe OERs as aggregations of individual
resources distributed accross the Web. We would intend our
deliverables, as defined by the proposal, to be well-considered,
designed and implemented, rather than rough demos - robust code intended
for a production environment. We would prefer, if necessary, to limit
their scope before their quality - as Brandon put very well a little
while back, 'working code trumps all'.
Kind Regards,
Alex
--
Alex Lydiate
Software& Systems Developer
LTEO - WH5.39
University of Bath
01225 383576
|