Sustainable policies, sustainable resources and publications for sustainable re-use: lessons from OOER
Megan is talking about predictions about sustainable reuse because its quite early to talk about...
Cloud created by:
13 May 2010
Megan is talking about predictions about sustainable reuse because its quite early to talk about sustainable use. Covering PG and staff development and multiple partners. It was a difficult bid to write because they were required to anticipate answers in the bid application that the project set out to answer.
Is OER the right route for your institution? A Simon says once its out there its out there - we can't put the genie back in the bottle. Getting ready for OER is all about putting your house in order 'what will you find when you turn the rock over?'
Toolkits allow institutions to compare their policies with best practice. Expect to be in Phase 3 by September, currently working in Phase 2 (beta) version. Imagining use of case studies will disappear over time and so will the toolkits because the policies, will be in place, aligned and instituions will follow them. They have a pyramid of OOER readiness. You move up to 'open' resources at the top. This translates into the reuse good practice compliance (managing risk) table. As HEIs we don't like legal exposure, and this sort of risk assessment helps identify where we are with exposure to litigation. Better processes help reduce risk. Megan points to a yellow hazard warning sign in the room and points out that this is also advising on risk and a way of managing exposure to
MEDEV has had to explain that not all of the material that they found through the consortia could be shared as OER.
Andy - MIT and OCWC put a link through to Amazon and they have made c. $40k dollars from the Amazon commission on sales. MIT has already got permission to reuse up to three images from Elsevier within any resource on their list.
Staff might feel that they don't want to use material that was 'not invented here' but examples from practice show that they are continually using other people's material (e.g. Grays anatomy) and they don't always realise that they need to attribute. Can be lots of sources within a single resource. Megan shows an example )Newcastle uses www.recap.com to capture slides and audio in one stage and they have 1000 of these available) but they can include very large numbers of third party material whichcause problems with reuse without a global agreement with publishers,
Beyond this MEDEV have identified that they need a consent commons - a human subject version of the creative commons. Could refer to something that they own (a brand product or a pet). These are a lot of things to think about. One example where someone died before they saw a final video in which they took part. People should have the right to withdraw consent which will require some sort of intelligent tracking that does not yet exist. This all sounds off-putting but MEDEV is not put off - it hopes the technology will come if we can say what we need.
Note to self (hint from Megan): Put text form of creative commons so that they are tagged as machine readable.
Suzanne talking about adding product to process and sees one of the challenges is in separating out the two. Institutions may over value the product.
Working across four types of content: Achived (we don't want to do anything with it), Legacy (as soon as its handed into a repository it goes out of date and that might be more or less predictable), dependant derepitude (they go out of date in an unpredictable manner - for example with swine flu legistrative requirements might change overnight, and up-to-date. Asking Jorum to support all of these. Is it the right thing to provide all of these and we need some other service for others? Jorum as a refaratory/archive rather than repository?
PIMPS example trys to make deposit as easily as possible for resources licensed to the subject centre by the people who have created them.
MEDEV have identified three diametric oppositions. Tensions between say trackability and openness, context and granularity, formal peer review and informal ratings. People may move on some values over time (alter their opinion) but on some (e.g. Obs/Gynae) they may never move (or at least are never expected to relax some standards).
Wikivet example of a closed community, but there may be lack of confidence in the product which impairs the release as open. It may be out of date before its released.
Their 17 partners are a tribe and would like to carry on. So may be SIG.
Thanks from both speakers to the whole team.
11:08 on 13 May 2010