Am I an expert?

I heard Allison Littlejohn give the opening keynote at the JISC Using Learning Resources event a couple of days ago. Thank you Allison for such a thought provoking presentation, and especially for allowing time for discussion afterwards. Sheila has written a summary of that meeting, including Allison’s presentation.

One reference that caught my attention was to the book Rethinking Expertise by Harry Collins and Robert Evans, which coincidentally I had just finished reading. The book is centred around a “periodic table of expertise” listing, among other things, a spectrum of levels of expertise from “beer mat” knowledge of disconnected facts up to the level of expertise needed to contribute to research on a topic. The novel idea in the book was that it is possible to have “interactional expertise”, which is the ability to talk sensibly to domain experts about a topic (e.g. gravitational wave physics) without being able to make a contribution. It is implied that this level of expertise would be useful in the management of projects and setting of public policy that have scientific or technical elements (and yes, the idea that “experts” might have more sensible things to say about technical topics is apparently contentious).

I found this interesting because I have always flinched when called an expert on X, but perhaps I can be happier if all that is required is interactional expertise. Certainly, interactional expertise in each others domains is a requirement for making a venture like educational technology truly inter-disciplinary (which it needs to be) rather than a disconnected set of specialisms.

Rethinking Expertise is reviewed more fully in the Times Higher and drafts of the first two chapters are available from Harry Collins’s publications page.

SFC Digital Repositories Seminar

A few weeks ago Lorna and I went to a Scottish Funding Council meeting organized to discuss the experiences of those SFC funded eLearning transformation projects that had used repositories. Lorna’s account of the meeting is on her blog. Now the SFC have published their own record of the meeting (it’s about half way down the page, under “Digital Repositories”).

Congratulations to the CeLLS project for negotiating the IPR issues in such a way is allowing them to make nearly all their material available through the Jorum. It’s a shame the other projects couldn’t manage this.

Progress with OAI-ORE?

There seems to be some progress towards an implementable draft spec for OAI-ORE. Perhaps the best available description of what the ORE (Object Reuse and Exchange) spec is trying achieve is an article published by Herbert Van de Sompel and Carl Lagoze, which comes with a screencastdemonstration of a prototype system. It will be interesting when the full details of ORE are available to compare it to the IMS Content Packaging approach to reuse and exchange. ORE seems to benefit from being thoroughly in tune with and building on the web architecture. Is there anything important that IMS CP supports that ORE doesn’t? For example, is it possible in ORE to define how the contents are to be organized or structured? It’s not really possible to say much more without actually seeing a draft of the actual spec, and those are being kept secret. It seems that details will not be available until an open meeting on March 3rd to launch the first beta release [update: I was mistaken, the alpha spec was released in December, see Pete’s comment below]. Earlier versions of the spec exist, but are not available to anyone outside the ORE team, a situation I find curious and frustrating.

A short update on Metadata specs

As promised when I wrote the short update on repository specs, here is the complementary information about what’s been happening over the last few months with education metadata specs. Brief version: some minor changes to the IEEE LOM have been agreed; closer harmony between the LOM and Dublin Core is in the offing; and if you think that DC comprises 15 elements you need to look at it again.

Continue reading

The “repository ecology” approach to describing cross-search aggregation service management

My colleague Malcolm and I have had our position paper for the ECDL 2007 workshop “Towards an European repository ecology” accepted, so I’ll be giving a presentation with the above title in Budapest on Sept 21st. We will use the ecology metaphor to describe and explore issues raised through a project that developed a pilot service providing resource discovery across a series of repositories of interest to the engineering learning and teaching communities. We’ll also describe the ecological habitat within which the pilot service that PerX created sat and sketch the ecological niche, that is the role of the service and its interactions with other entities. In doing so we hope to show that, while a technical architecture is at the heart of this description, the ecology approach highlights crucial interactions that are out of the scope of a technical architecture.
Continue reading