[Oer-community] Revisiting the issue of collaboration

[Susan D'Antoni]

Hello Tel and colleagues,

Yes we do need to define the initiatives to be mapped.  If we aimed to
create a gloabl listing and map, we are aiming at breadth - and that is a
lot of work as more than one participant noted.

So, one approach would be to start with a narrow definition and then expand
it as the mapping project builds.

The work could build progressively by level of education.  For example, it
could start with the OER initiatives and projects of tertiary level
institutions that are accredited within their jurisdiction.

Starting with a narrow focus of type of initiative and the amount of data
increases the feasibilty of achieving this work.  One of my professors used
to remind us of KISS when considering a thesis topic - Keep It Simple,
Stupid.

Glad to see the discussion move back on topic.

Best,

Susan

On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Tel Amiel <tel.amiel at gmail.com> wrote:

> hi susan,
>
> i agree, and I think it would be useful for us to re-focus (or open up a
> thread) the discussion on what kinds of data/projects/initiatives/resources
> we want to map before (or in parallel to) discussions on meta-data and
> licensing.
>
> tel
>
> On 27/11/2012, at 17:32, Susan D'Antoni wrote:
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
> To follow up on the several messages related to organizing collaboration
> for data collection, would it be feasible to consider regional or national
> hubs?
>
> Best,
>
> Susan
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://deimos.cs.athabascau.ca/mailman/private/oer-community/attachments/20121127/f651bffc/attachment.html