Implementing HarvestRoad’s Hive System at Griffith University: Practice Validates Theory Joanna...

Implementing HarvestRoad’s Hive System at Griffith University: Practice Validates Theory

Joanna Richardson

Digital Repository Administrator

Information Services ALIA CAM Digital Repository8 October 2004

2Information Services

Death by PowerPoint


Implementation:Practice/TheoryGriffith context will be presented elsewhere

Repository structure has been designed

Several starter projects have commenced

Practice is validating theory

Ambitious future plans (the future is next week!)

Creative tension (Jekyll and Hive)


Griffith University Context

An in-depth discussion of the background to the digital repository project will be presented at:

• Online Learning & Teaching (OLT) Conference, QUT, 3 November 2004(https://olt.qut.edu.au/udf/olt2004/)

• Information Online Conference, Sydney, 1-3 February 2005(http://conferences.alia.org.au/online2005/)


High Demand – Learning@Griffith

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

2003/1 2004/2 2006

Active courses

With lecturersassigned

Organisations


Sessions – Learning@Griffith

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

Feb Mar Apr May

Concurrent sessions2004


Data – Learning@Griffith

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2003 2004

Gigabytes data

Attached objects, eg PDFs and PPTs


Driving Forces at Griffith University

• Return on investment / maximise investment

Non-duplication of t&l / other resources

Re-use; recombine; share

• Risk management / mitigation

Copyright

Intellectual property

Artefact history / litigation


LMS and Learning Objects

• The course structure of the typical LMS does not encourage sharing and reuse of learning objects

• It encourages duplication• It allows deletion of valuable resources• It is difficult for enforcing copyright• It is difficult to maximise institution’s investment


Past Examination Papers

• Least complex objects [arguably]• Already digitised and in PDF• Relatively small collection• Good starting point for developing core metadata• Under the control of INS staff, ie Digitisation and

Distribution


Digitised Exams

Stage 2• Use Hive for the whole

exam management process

E&T UniPrint INS Load to Hive

Link via GriffLink and Learning@Griffith

E&T Hive space Academics

E&T approvalLoad direct to Hive

Stage 1• Move existing central

exams from web site to the

Hive• Bureau structured by “year”


Course Readings

• Single storage format (PDF): multiple delivery formats

• Introduces the complexity of copyright• Once again is under the control of INS staff ie

Digitisation and Distribution


Course Readings

Academic request /Course pack

Digitisation Group

Load to Hive

Link via GriffLink and Learning@Griffith

Course outlines

Compare with Hiveholdings

Create work list

Copyright management module

Digitise new readings

From Hive


ePrints• Deposit collection of papers that showcases the research

output of Griffith academic staff both before and after peer-reviewed publication

• Already implemented in many Australian universities –using open source software from “eprints.org”

• HarvestRoad is working on Hive to be OAI-PMH compliant• Link from DEST HERDC data to Hive would be sensible• Challenge: selling the concept to academic staff


Art ImagesReplace standalone database• Transfer 70,000 records

describing slides• Transfer existing 2,000

images• Policy on file size /

resolution• Collection policy slides vs

images

• Open bureau structure• Visual Resource

Association (VRA) Core Categories (metadata)

• Thumbnails


Teaching and Learning Objects

• Most challenging (Desert SCORM)• Traditional course structure approach does not

encourage sharing and reuse• Breaking down course barriers is impacting

on digital repository and the way in which users will upload / access learning objects


Bureau Hive Admin

Admin INS

T&L

Academic T&L

Collection A…X

Development

Services Documentation

Templates

Readings

Exams

T&L DLOs

ePrints

Image collections

Research data

Load items to be worked on

Category Default INS and FLAS

projects

INS- controlled

Archives

Non-permanent

Items Structured

Workflows

INS

UniPrint

Unstructured


So What Is The Theory?

• New services need new policies

(MacKenzie Smith, MIT, 2004)

• More time on culture, practice and politics than on technical issues

(Sullivan, AusWeb, 2004; Campbell et al, 2004)


Lessons Learned – Part One• Purpose(s) of repository dictate(s) many decisions• Encourage behavioural change• No ROI in just depositing what you currently have

into a digital repository• Analyse the whole business process—not just the

objects as the end-result—and consider influencing the creation process (potential real ROI)


Lessons Learned – Part Two

• Metadata: the major standards are fine for sharing t&l, for example. But we have a fundamental requirement for rights management and technical / administrative data

• Interoperability, i.e. what is shared publicly, is the part of any standard which dictates decisions

• Resource implications


Lessons Learned – Part Three• Implementation of any system at the enterprise level will

expose the shortcomings within an institution• People will view a digital repository as “the solution”• Staff time and skills required from teaching & learning,

technical, and traditional library content management areas• Need to cross these boundaries for it to work • Otherwise the digital repository may be implemented from

only one of these perspectives


And the question is …..?

• Who has the answers?

Implementing HarvestRoad’s Hive System at Griffith University: Practice Validates Theory Joanna...

Documents

Transcript of Implementing HarvestRoad’s Hive System at Griffith University: Practice Validates Theory Joanna...