|
|
|
Our project
responds to these four areas like so:
|
|
|
|
The first two =
no response, as such.
|
|
The latter two =
the heart of our presentation: CP and WS.
|
|
|
|
1.It’s a given, for us, that the OCW content merits
archiving.
|
|
It remains a
discussion re: content direct from CLEs (unfiltered through OCW)
|
|
|
|
2. For our
project the bar is not terribly high re: disaggregation & similar of OCW
courses. They don’t lend themselves to
it, and the repository doesn’t (yet?) lend itself to dealing with a lot of
flexibility in this vein. Leaving
this “As-Is” for the moment. Future
work.
|
|
|
|
3. Content
Packaging, and in particular an Application Profile to content packaging, is
central to our work. As for the choice
of _which_ content packaging standard, details later.
|
|
|
|
4. Web Services
are called for, and we chose a particular technical approach to this that
maps well to a digital archive.
Details later.
|
|
|
|
CUE NEXT SLIDE
|
|
So, before we
dive into these two topics, what is a BIRD’S EYE VIEW of what we are trying
to achieve ? TURN … 1st of 3 InterOp…
|