DELIVER where we’re up to and how we got here

1. DELIVERwhere we’re up to and how we got here DELIVERwhere we’re up to and how we got here John Paschoud DELIVER Project Manager DiVLE Programme meeting, 20 March 2003 John Paschoud DELIVER Project Manager DiVLE Programme meeting, 20 March 2003

2. Where do VLE and Library domains really overlap? This is the general question posed in the JISC 7/02 programme • VLE classifies resources by purpose • course, lecture, date (of use), topic • some resources created for a teaching purpose • LMS classifies resources by content • author, title, subject, date (of creation) • Reading lists! This is the focus of Project DELIVER

3. Guiding premises • A broader interpretation than ‘traditional’ reading lists: any citeable resource • Library back-office staff (acquisitions, etc) are an important group of users • Organisational engineering (as well as the technical sort) • Solutions to be implemented by LSE and De Montfort University • Open standards inter-operability between components (not limited to particular VLE/LMS) • Experience to be documented for use by the wider community

4. Course compilers VLE (WebCT) LMS (Sirsi, Talis) RLM (???) ‘appropriate copy’ links, access-controlled external content:e-journals Library staff (Acquisitions, Course Support) locally-held content:e-course-packs Structure of DELIVER

5. Content Management problems • ‘Appropriate Copy’ • the version the tutor finds isn’t always the version to direct the students to • Access Management • password proliferation • user role definition • Local content needs librarianship • re-usability • scaleable management • Need for a standard to describe / exchange lists • bibliographic for items (easy) • ‘wrapper’ for sequence, commentary, course application etc (IMS/LOM? Suggestions?)

6. ANGEL-inside • The ‘smart-link-finder’ • helps course compilers find/copy/paste a URL for a resource • Links are ‘indirect’ • they point to the ANGEL metadata for a resource; not some actual location of the resource itself • Actual links are resolved when used • to ‘appropriate copy’ for user and location • with all use logged consistently • to resources without a ‘natural URL’

7. [LSE-EL client: Resource listing]

8. [LSE-EL client: Resource details & Location links]

9. [ANGEL server messages, underneath]

10. Structure of the Project • User Needs Analysis • Academic staff (including surrogate course-compilers); Students • Library liaison & acquisitions staff; VLE support staff • Requirements Spec • Core Resource List Management • Interface (listing, retrieving, content-management) to e-resources • Organisational changes • Build, Integrate • ANGEL core server components • DELIVER-specific interfaces & clients (also meeting many of requirements of DEVIL Project • DEVIL-specific interfaces & integration • Deploy, Disseminate, Promote • Institutional decisions • Evaluation (Exit strategy, sort of)

11. Challenges, Differences, … • (relatively) Practical objectives & deliverables • Clear institutional focus on DMU and LSE • Added complexity of relationships with two other projects: ANGEL and DEVIL • Wider objectives of ongoing ANGEL development • Constrained timetable

12. Tools, Methods, … • Stalinism! • “The political principles and economic policies developed by Joseph Stalin from Marxist Leninist thought, which included centralized autocratic rule and total suppression of dissent.”<http://www.horton.ednet.ns.ca/staff/scottbennett/HORTON/TsarStalin/stalinpage.htm> • JISCmail team list • An ongoing ‘minute’ of discussions, agreements & ideas • Projectplace • A collaborative web work environment for planning and trackinghttp://www.projectplace.co.uk/ • Active public project website