Project overview

Its always good to reflect they say. So as part of the checking process to make sure everything is in place I decided to go back over the blog and map what we did, when we did it and to which of the three streams it impacted on. It is quite clear from this that the primary focus has been on metadata why, how, who does this? This has been closely linked to the setting up of the repository and the discussions around learning objects in general. The following image maps to some extent the process we have undertaken and dates the main events to which blog posts are available. The information in dashed boxes are main events that, currently have no formal report or blog post attached. Some of these are still sat on the lap top and will be updated in due course.

Overview of Streamline Project

Reporting on Belfast Metropolitan College Visit

Although I originally planed to do a day by day account of our visit to Belfast Met I decided that this would not give a coherent and clear view of the workflows that they have developed. Also Nick has already voiced the more personal aspects of the visit, so I won’t be repeating them here. The following report discusses the creation, use and sharing of learning objects. Overall there is a strong culture of learning object use which has been supported by a dedicated team both technically and artisticly. As Nick has pointed out in his post, there is little metadata creation. The primary reason for this is that currently there is no real need for it at Belfast Met. Learning objects are repurposed form subscription repositories or the internet and placed within the VLE for immediate use. Bespoke creations are listed for general perusal but no formal repository has yet been required. This is very different form the culture that is developing at Leeds met and is most likely given to the different natures of teaching at FE and HE. However it has proved an insightful counterpoint to the problems we have faced and the solutions we have been developing.

 

Updating the overall architecture

Last time Mark and I got together to apprise our current progress on the search extender for use with IntraLibrary, we also reviewed the general architecture of the systems surrounding the repository. As with most things this creative and dynamic this was done with pen and paper over a copy of our previous design and it is only recently that I have had the time to formalise it. An image of this is here. There has been a few refinements since then and the following diagram I think gives a good overview of what we have at the moment and what **things** are involved.

There are still a few issues. On the upload side we would have loved to have had a go at adapting SWORD to take a metadata file as well as the LO. SWORD’s purpose is to ease upload of multiple objects to multiple repositories as Nick explains here. But what does the user do then if they are not uploading packed objects? Where does the metadata come from? This is particularly relevant in the use of intraLibrary.

The other question is one that has been floating around for some time. How do we authentic the actual download of the Learning Object. Unlike Research papers (shown here as a comparison, as the repository is duel purpose) there are issues and concerns about making learning objects accessible external to the institution. As a result of this the search interface is currently two interfaces rather than the one. One suggestion is that as long as the metadata is exposed individuals could enquire as to getting a copy of the LO via the authors/institution.

Current Streamline Architecture

Search method proposals

Mark and I meet earlier this month to discuss where we wanted to go regarding the search prototype. We decided that we would utilise the work already done by Mike on the SRU interface for the research aspects of the repository. This would provide us with an Input Interface for querying the repository.

Mark would come up with some ingenious methods of extending the basic search process. These will incorporate Elizabeth’s ideas about bookshelf browsing without relying on the latent semantic analysis (LSA) she is developing. The LSA current version is reliant on libraries not compatible with a web based apps and will take some time to translate. In the meantime we can put something together that gives the visual impression for testing with users.

The output from this would then be displayed in some visually interesting way, see interface designs here, possibly using PHP, JavaScript, Java servlets or the Google web toolkit. This is the bit I have together put together, after exploring potential technologies.

Today I received four ideas for the processing element form Mark. For those of you not so techy I have done a few diagrams to give you a better idea.

Method 1 – simple extension
Submit multiple searches, by getting search info. Then creating alternative versions using thesaurus. Rather than doing a single search do multiple searches using this information then produce results as a visualisation.

Method 2 – Iterative result reuse
Getting initial results from a search, extract keywords (or other metadata) of returned document, then use this to find related documents. Extracted keywords and those found in second pass should be standardised using thesaurus. For each set of search results, submit new search, then follow same process recursively (obviously removing common returned elements). Each iteration should result in documents less related to initial document.

Method 3 – Collaborative search via profile matching
Identify all searches performed by a user in a particular session i.e. build a profile of a particular users searches. X-reference this to searches performed by other users in a particular session. Identify different searches are commonly used within the same sessions. This should give a list of related articles that may be of interest to users who search for the dame type of things (even if the keywords, content or metadata of the documents is completely unrelated). The more sessions that a set of related searches are performed, the more likelihood that they are related in some way.

Method 4 – Collaborative search via document matching

Anytime a search is done cache the returned documents. When new searches are done get a returned resource and find all caches that also contain that document, then return the contents of each cache as secondary results. Again this could be done recursively.

Search method 4

Search method 1

Search method 2

Search method 3

Search & Extract Metadata Interface designs

Here are the interface designs for the two main tools we intend to produce. This one contains a ruff sketchof a free standing metadata generation tool using Denim. Once you’ve install Denim and open one of the files in the zip, go to the Denim’s menu (top left) and select File > Run. The enclosed word document gives more details as well as screen-shots of some of the features for those of you who are unable to get Denim to run. The ideas on how to present keywords to the user are contained in the previous Denim release and may be incorporated here depending on the algorithms used. At its most basic it should be able to extract keywords from university documents and use a store of information to add the reaming metadata fields. Some of this was discussed in a previous report on eCat’s metadata.

 

The second tool is for searching a metadata store, initially a folder of flat files. Sketches of three interfacehave been produced for this. The download also contains a word doc with more details and screen shots . These have been influenced by the investigations into repositories, content management systems and eCat. The basic functionality remains the same across these interfaces but their presentation is very different. The aim here is to produce a stand alone application for user evaluation of different search methods and algorithms. Hence the actual search feature has many elements to test different combinations.

 

Eventually both these tools can be developed into web services, if appropriate so they can be used by other applications. This will mean the development of a connection interface and administration tools.

 

Feed back on all these and the previous eCat interfaces released is essential so please make comments.

 

Moodle update

The look and feel for the Moodle-based repository has now been designed and integrated into the site. This screen shot shows the front page. A few things need to be tweaked depending on which features we decided to keep/reject. I am now working on adjusting the search interface to enable users to download objects of interest into a personal space and add objects to the repository.

The portfolio plug-in (visible on the screen shot), may provide a foundation for this, but has too low a level of organisation to do the job itself. This is currently not installed on the live site.

A version of eCat is available on the Moodle site, for download. Some adjustments need to be made if this is going to be an input client of the Moodle repository. In the mean time learning objects should be packed and emailed to myself. These can be stored in the database, searched and viewed.