These are the summarized minutes from the C-change management meeting, 04/11/09
EB and MS presented Interim Report notes. The reporting deadline is the 9th November, sent to Academy York. The framework of the meeting revolved around reporting against Work Package activities. At present everything has gone to plan, apart from late staff recruitment due to issues with HR and the original time frame of the OER funding.
Work Packages 2-7 relate to the partners. The IPR workshop occurred in September, and it was this workshop which initiated partner work. It was acknowledged that the amount of time for the partners to do their repurposing is short, again due to the nature of the OER funding. At the IPR workshop there was some worry that the short time frame was not obvious to partners. EB has visited a number of the partners now, with most obviously on track. Each partner is taking a slightly different pathway to gaining clearance for materials.
o Southampton has 6 part-time PhD students working on getting clearance for repurposed materials, with as little referral back to the authors as possible. EB gave a talk to the students on IPR/copyright, and they were interested and already showed understanding of this area. The students also acknowledged the issue of realistic timeframes, especially when gaining copyright clearance. They were trying to get most of the re-purposing done before Christmas, but it is now expected that most partners will have slippage in this.
o In Exeter, the clearance is being done by the partner authors. No resource has been seen by core team yet. There has been some discussion regarding processes relating to the Exeter institutional project. MS has agreed with the C-change Exeter partner that he would resolve this internally.
o EB has visited Keele, where they have a research assistant in place and working with authors on clearance.
o EB is due to have a VC meeting with the OU partners on the 5th November. It has just been announced that the OU have been successful in funding for the SCORE project, which will release 75 hours of climate change material. The C-change core team had not been aware of this project, and this will be discussed at the VC meeting.
o EB and MS have had a telephone discussions with Newport. The research assistant for this project cannot start until January the 10th, ’10.
o The Liverpool partner has sent out his project money to two individuals, one in the US and one in the UK, to repurpose the material. A question was raised about how C-change would capture evaluative information on the project’s process in this instance. It was suggested that EB would need to talk to these two individuals.
Workpackage 8 (Legal and IPR). The IPR workshop has gone ahead and went well. MS and EB have had a meeting with University of Plymouth librarian, who has looked over current documentation and approved it. He did suggest considering using ‘criticism/review exception and fair-dealing’, but EB raised the issue that this is more suitable for humanities and arts, rather than factual ‘scientific’ material. EB will be attending further IPR workshops over the next few months, and it seems clear that other OER projects are still having problems with IPR issues and that this will have a knock-on effect r.e. timeframes etc.
The C-change team has a draft IPR clearance letter from the facilitator of the IPR workshop. At present EB is trying to get some standardization across the partners, and is trying to devise a schema to give to them. However, there is a question as to how much we push partners to agree to a totally standard schema/agreement. We need to find a middle way, as we don’t want 6 totally different sets of data/processes, but on the other hand forcing total standardization seems to act against the pilot nature of the project.
There is also a question as to what happens to the data after the end of the project; where would the metadata and the resource live? Legacy is an issue. There have been similar problems with FDTL projects. JISC ask projects to keep resources/data live for three years, after which time they archive project sites. Archiving repositories is another issue in itself, but OER material will go on and gain a new life of its own by its very nature. Ideally we want to find examples of agreements and processes that have dealt with this issue.
EB asked if the team could implant rights into a resource via an XML file- for example, image tagging to help with management of images has taken off, but this is not happening in academica. If XML is used, pinning ‘due diligence’ to the resource, then there might be an issue of narrowing the usage of the resource too much. Andy McGregor from JISC Repositories might have some useful ideas. There are schema from SPECTRUM, and re-written as part of SCA. It is extensive and would need streamlining for academia. However, is definitely an avenue of exploration (again maybe for another project!). NW mentioned that this is an offshoot of the project- not part of the work plan, but to do with benefits realisation for repositories. Therefore, it is worth ‘light touch’ investigation for possible future projects.
One of the big issues for partners’ copyright clearance work that is now becoming clear is that of clearance for diagrams and graphs- that is, ‘translation’ of data and facts, where the data/fact itself has no copyright issues, but the translation of that for a reader/audience/student does have issues. There is the option to ‘re-draw’ from original data, but in reality most partners are contacting publishers to ask for clearance. EB is currently constructing a list of common contacts across all partners: this list will give partners further choice in who to contact for clearance of diagrams, and might lead, if a number of partners have issues with one particular publisher, to the GEES SC, or even the HEA contacting the publishers on the partners’ behalf. Additional fields related to publishers’ willingness to provide clearance might be added from ROMEO/JULIET- part of the SHERPA [http://www.sherpa.ac.uk] tool search- this ‘traffic lights’ journals.
Workpackage 9, technology: the Blog is working, with repository space. MT is currently trying to get some interoperability with OpenJorum (OJ). The forum is up and currently under test. The team were reminded that the forum is for private community of practice and team discussions, the blog is the ‘public face’. With respect to OpenJorum, we have no current 1st hand experience of its use as yet. At present, the Jorum team say it will be ready in January. There are currently interim interfaces. Any issues with OJ could have an impact on the workflow for the C-change project, although it is intended that only metadata will appear in there, with the resources themselves held in either/or both institutional partner repositories and UPlace. At present there ARE issues with OJ such as there being no bulk upload facility. SWORD, a simple deposition tool for multiple repositories. At present it is not certain that OJ will have this capacity. NW highlighted this area as another example of a future enhancement project. In terms of metadata, the team are trying to work with both OJ and UPlace as much as possible. It was pointed out that as long as the team can map our metadata to OJ, it will work: OJ will be using Dublin Core, so it is worth the C-change team investigating mappings now, so that if there are any extensions that are needed, NW and RS can help. It is likely that it is only the subject field that will need extending- although there is also a question over whether this field will be searchable by users (not all fields are searchable).
MT is also exploring the use of CAPTIVATE for the creation of interactive tutorials as learning objects. NW suggested that XERTE should be used to build such learning objects, which would ensure that they are SCORM 1.2 compliant. A question was also raised as to how GLOW2 sits against XERTE? This links to the OL2 CETL.
Workpackage 10: Community of Practice. The forum is in place and being tested, but there is a worry amongst the team that it is a little under-engineered. As soon as the Blog is up-to-date and the team is happy with the forum, then there will be a ‘launch’ party (possibly on Elluminate) for the CP. This will need some thinking r.e. publicity and future events. There have been a number of people external to the project who have expressed an interest in joining the pedagogy CP. It is now timely to take this area of dissemination forward. It was suggested by YK that it would make sense to link that CP to the publication of the ‘Pedagogy of Climate Change’ book which will be due out soon.
We need to ensure that Ped of climate change book and any other GEES SC materials are put into repository when time comes- if timing right, maybe could be early test materials, particularly Planet articles? Planet articles already have copyright clearance from authors.
Workpackage 11: evaluation. HK has produced an evaluation strategy which is currently underway. YK and HK worked with the Subject Synthesis team (Helen Beetham) to pick out the specific areas of evaluation that would be worth concentrating on for this project.
Workpackage 12: Dissemination. HK presented a C-change Poster at GSA, to good interest and feedback. Publicity has also gone out on JISCmail and MS has written a paper for Planet, which is out now. The first IPR workshop was successfully run, as a combination of life and VC.