[Oer-community] Introduction to the discussion

[Tim Cook]

On Thu, 2010-10-07 at 17:22 -0400, Kimberly Wescott wrote:
> 
> As usual, it is the common ground between yes and no where we find
> solutions.  I like the idea of user-rating.  However, if, as you
> suggest (and I'm sure you're right) material is reversioned over an
> over, how might we keep that rating current?  Can we?  
>  
> Kimberly
> Houston, Texas

Hi Kimberly & All,

The community rating suggested by Theo (and possibly others) seems to
work well in other environments. 

To address the versioning issue with regards to the rating system.  I
suggest the following approach:

1. Content is created and edited using one of the standard formats.
2. When the content creation groups (authors?) decides that they have a
publishable work.  They export that work using some revision numbering
sequence ( 0.0.1, First Edition, the version repository ID, etc.) into
some common but less volatile format such as PDF. [1]
3. The broader community can rate this published revision on its own
merits.
4. Work on the original can continue[2]; aiming for the next revision.  
5. Community comments on the published revision as well as the current
repository revision can be collected in a Tracker (like a bug collector)
so that the group of authors/editors can track and respond to them. 

If you think that this process requires a significant investment of time
and possibly cash in order to operate you are correct if you attempt it
yourself. If you want to host it yourself you can use a content
management system such as Plone http://www.plone.org 

My suggestion here is to use one of the freely available sites for this
management activity. 


I have no idea who is responsible for this but the Creative Commons
website has an entry regarding OER http://wiki.creativecommons.org/OER 

In fact the way I found the UNESCO OER site was from a link on their
education page: http://creativecommons.org/education 

Rice University[3] offers accounts on their Connexions site
http://cnx.org It seems to me to offer the functionality that content
authors may be comfortable with using.  There are likely other sites
like this already setup and operating under a grant.  Someone pointed
out earlier about the dangers of grant based operations.  But I will
also suggest that the leaders of this group to work with one or more of
the established organizations.  This could likely lead to  renewed or
increased grants for the operating organization due to increased usage. 

I will caution that sometimes there are export controls within certain
countries that may inhibit deserving individuals from gaining access to
the content.  As incredulous as this may sound it is a fact to watch for
when making this decision.  

I will also suggest that the functionality in what is meant to be a
software repository and tools such as Launchpad[4] http://launchpad.net
is a better choice IMHO.  This is due to being able to create an
umbrella project and all sub-projects under it.  

Either way I am willing to help answer questions about these issues and
tutor those that need it in using these tools.  

Cheers,
Tim



[1] Please note that a publishable product doesn't have to mean
something deemed fit for broad use.  It could be something as simple as
a Table of Contents and an Introduction or maybe with a few notes on
what each chapter will be about.  This should be left up to the group of
authors.  In the free and open source software (FOSS) world we find that
"release early and release often" works very well.  

[2] Also in the FOSS world, the current working copy is usually
available to anyone that wants to get it from the repository.  But only
those that have earned the trust of the authors can contribute back to
the repository.  Therefore becoming one of the authors. 

[3] I am not affiliated in any way with Rice University. 

[4] I am not affiliated in any way with Launchpad; with the exception of
being a happy user.



-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20101007/e6f901d5/attachment-0001.bin