1 / 12

Examining P2P Feasibility in UK Higher Education: LionShare Project Overview

This project delves into the viability of peer-to-peer (P2P) technology in UK higher education, focusing on LionShare, an open-source P2P system with advanced features like Authentication and Authorization, Directory Integration, File Storage, and more. The study explores the transition of informal to formal repositories and implications for institutions.

ebony
Download Presentation

Examining P2P Feasibility in UK Higher Education: LionShare Project Overview

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Overview • SPIRE project: Looking at the feasibility of P2P in UK higher education • Focused on Penn States open source P2P system ‘LionShare’ which is a heavily modified version of the ‘Limewire’ project (released version 1.0 end of Sept 05) • Major difference between normal P2P and LionShare is the inclusion of Authentication and Authorisation • P2P and Authentication +Authorisation is a complex mix

  2. LionShare Features • Authentication and Authorization • Directory Integration • Verification of Sharer’s Identity • Access Control • Network File Storage and Sharing • Automated Metadata • Image Preview • Federated Repository Search • User Profile • Support for Multiple Metadata Schemas • Creative Commons Licensing

  3. Protocols • Uses Gnutella for P2P • Uses HTTP to move files • Can search over repositories using ECL or OKI OSID • Chat via Jabber • Has bespoke protocol with SASL-CA

  4. Main Ingredients for LionShare • The peer on your desktop (client and a server) • SASL-CA server (to provide the peer with network certificates) • Directory service (LDAP or Active Directory (with Eduperson)) • Network Security (Kerberos) • Shibboleth 1.3 (to control access to files)

  5. Three Pronged Approach • Active Directory based install controlled by TALL for early adopter community (broken) • Install linked into Oxford Universities central LDAP (finished) • Install linked to the SDSS text Shibboleth federation (ongoing) Next Step • Build simple version into Reload

  6. LionShare in Reload

  7. Informal to Formal:Tools • Within repositories: P2P, Wikis, Blogs • Description of specific technologies or a mode of use? • Technologies that can be contributed to… Informal: • Wiki • Blogs • P2P • Flickr • My Space • Del.ic.ious Formal: • Dspace • E-prints • VLEs • Institutional Websites

  8. Informal to Formal:Features Informal: • You won’t have to talk to a lawyer • Often ‘on the web’ • Open remit, no heavily prescriptive ideology • Not assessed • Not ‘officially’ published • Casual approach to rights • Collaboration is key (content is written ‘into’ the tool) • Often a social network Formal: • You might have to talk to a lawyer • You may have to be a member of an institution • Maybe assessed • Clear ideology / structure • Collaboration is often indirect (holds objects) • Provided by employer • ‘Secure’ • Could be used for publication

  9. Informal to Formal:LionShare Mapped Informal: • Informal and ‘open’ philosophy • Not used for formal publication • Not assessed Formal: • Institutional sign-in • Can restrict access to selected objects • Not highly collaborative (indirect) • Provided by employer • Conscientious about rights

  10. Informal to Formal:Publication Cycle RepoMMan project Can these ideas be mapped against this principle?

  11. Implications • Institutions should encourage the use of informal repositories • Institutions should suggest a path (workflow) from informal to formal repositories without attempting to own the informal element • Once paths have been established issues of interoperability should be tackled • Institutions should not necessarily attempt to ‘own’ informal repositories • Institutions should find ways of building informal repository use into assessed / reward outcomes? • The data on informal repositories is relatively transient

  12. Project Site http://spire.conted.ox.ac.ukdavid.white@conted.ox.ac.ukhttp://lionshare.its.psu.edu/main/

More Related