|
|
|
What does it
mean, what is NEW, about working with OpenCourseWare content, in terms of
archiving to DSpace?
|
|
(That is, this
is in comparison with what DSpace has been typically used for to date: the
research and scholarly record.)
|
|
|
|
1.Policy & the “What”-ness of it:
|
|
Educational
material more recent arrival to Institutional Repository (IR) archving
treatment, contrasted with traditional scholarly research, the academic
record.
|
|
Teaching &
learning materials regarded as perhaps less polished, final; can be
ever-changing. Often more suitable to
Content Management Systems than IR/archives.
|
|
OpenCourseWare
is a static, end-of-semster snapshot of entire course offering; better first
candidate for “Ed. Tech meets Digital Archive.”
|
|
|
|
2. Granularity:
|
|
OCW @ MIT does
not have “Learning Objects,” per se.
Instead our atomic unit is at the Course level. Ideally, educational content in DSpace
could be treated at a more granular level (future work).
|
|
|
|
3. Complexity:
|
|
The OCW
“Courseware” is a static website. That’s comparatively straightforward
(compare dynamic CLEs), but still represents new ground for DSpace, which as
classic IR had initial designs to handle very simple Items: a .PDF paired
with a PostScript, and similar.
Educational content almost always involves more complex digital
objects (applets; online textbooks; course sites; etc.)
|
|
|
|
4. Back-End to
Teaching/Learning Front-Ends:
|
|
More than the
traditional scholarly materials, this teaching & learning content--as is
obvious from what we call it--is a far more likely for classroom use, and to
be served by CLEs or Image Tools and similar. This is at least one part of what drives
the need for networked access via Web Services (the other, primary, need being the
OCW-2-DSpace archive conduit).
|
|
|
|
|
|
CUE NEXT
SLIDE (or “BUILD” in this case):
|
|
So, how does our
project respond to these new things ? … CLICK (“Turn”) … (CP and WS)
|
