Title changed to "Composing Learning Resources from Multiple Sources."
Thanks. Would it now make sense to move this section into the "Compose" chapter? - Though some sections might be better right here under "Adapt" - e.g. the last one -- "When not to Adapt", and there could be some overlap. Probably better to move it all except When not to Adapt and possibly refer to it from here.
- "... considerations to combining content from multiple sources." - the text after this could become another very short section (Licensing) which does little more than indicate that a suitable license is required and refer the reader to the appropriate section in the main Licensing chapter.
I think this is an interesting question. As I look at the Compose and Adapt chapters I realize that the line between the two is somewhat blurry, though distinct enough to remain separate chapters. For example I'd move "Mobile Access" back to OER, though I realize it could be either a composing or adaptating subject.
What I'd like to do is continue this discussion on the issue tracker (because of its pan-chapter implications), but I guess the question I'd like to ask is: What do you see as the distinction between Composing OER and Adaptating OER in the context of this handbook?
I understand your point of view. I always thought that Composing was more about generating an OER from scratch, while adapting was more about changing an existing OER.
Unfortunately, because of time, we cannot subsume Adapting into Composing OER.
No need to necessarily subsume the "Adapt" chapter into the "Compose" chapter.
"Creating" an OER suggests from scratch. "Composing" an OER potentially includes creating and adapting (incl. localizing) components while piecing them together.
Suggestion: rename page to "Quality" to be consistent with equivalent section in previous chapter (done).
>>No need to necessarily subsume the "Adapt" chapter into the "Compose" chapter.
It's still a merging of the two chapters, which affects diagrams and any number of pages. My feeling is that we are in the eleventh hour in the production of the first version of the handbook, and we can't make large changes to the structure. I am in favor of the doing something closely along what you've proposed in the second edition (though I might flatten the indentation a little, but the essence would be there).
>>Suggestion: rename page to "Quality" to be consistent with equivalent section in previous chapter (done).
I've made some changes to be more inclusive of different mediums, because it was originally written for writing only.