Streamline News

Integrating Repository Function with Work Practice

Posts Tagged ‘rights’

Visit from intraLibrary

Posted by Dawn on November 27, 2008

I spent most of today with Nick and Peter from Interlect resolving some of the issues with the repository. The discussion revolved around getting intraLibrary to do what we want in terms of learning objects (LOs). I haven’t had a great deal of time previously to play with the system and it was a good opportunity to sort out some of the complexities surrounding collections and application profiles and their relations to various elements with in the system.

There was some initial discussion with Wendy and Jill about the difference between LOs and research papers. While it is the aim of the repository project to develop an open access platform and community for research papers this is not necessarily the case with LOs. There is concern among staff about making LOs public. This has been highlighted by Nick and other repository developments . For now the general consensus is to proved access only within LeedMet and via a different interface to that used by the research outputs. Ideally we would like to link up to the research interface and at the very least allow access to LOs metadata. This will then enable interested parties to contact staff in to arrange access to objects on a one to one base.

Further to Nick’s post about the components and structure of intraLibrary I came up with the following diagram as an idea to understanding these relationships.

IntraLibrary concepts

IntraLibrary concepts

As Peter noted in our discussions it is the group that is essential to the process and defining an individual’s role and permissions within that group. I suspect a will amend my view of these elements as I continue to organise the repository and my understanding grows.

Another thing we discussed at great length was IP and LOM Right section. As a mentioned earlier I have included Rights in the mandatory minimal set of metadata for LOs in the repository. Peter suggested this what not a good thing. He suggested that this should be added later by a cataloger. I thought it would be very hard for anyone to trace Rights on a LO that has minimal information, hence leaving it up to the depositor. Peter then suggested using a Usage agreement that depositors need to agree to and a take down policy. This puts the onus on the depositor to check their content and then a standard Rights policy can be applied. Special cases will have to go through a more manual process.

Other Issues:

  • Authentication is still a big issue and realistically Peter suspected it could take up till March to resolve. This left us with the decision to manually setup user accounts for LO depositors.
  • There are still some CSS issues in Internet Explore particularly in the upload process and personal preferences. A more recent IntraLibrary build should sort this out and we have been promised to have this done by the end of next weekish!
  • IMS packages produced by the replica project have problems with viewing and metadata extraction. Hopefully peter has solved this one via a setting in the admin section. Unfortunately what ever we did crashed Interlibrary for a couple of our so we didn’t get round to testing it at the time. Job for first thing on Monday I suspect.
  • As mention previously I am currently unable to upload a single XML metadata file to associate it with content in the repository. This is essential for use with the generator we have devised.
Advertisements

Posted in General, Reflections, Repositories | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »