Overview Over LOM Copyright Information of Subobjects

1 Initial Problem

It is hard to judge whether the copyright information in the LOM of an Object is set correctly. In particular, ILIAS offers no mechanism to make sure that the copyright of an Object is consistent with that of Subobjects (Pages in a Learning Module, Terms in a Glossary, ...).

2 Conceptual Summary

In the 'Metadata'-tab of an Object, a tree is shown with the Object as root and all Subobjects as nested branches, and their respective Copyright. This only affects Objects that support LOM and could potentially have Subobjects, and is only shown when 'Copyright Selection' is enabled in the Metadata Administration.

3 User Interface Modifications

3.1 List of Affected Views

• … { Please list titles of all views (screens) of ILIAS that should be modified, newly introduced or removed. }

3.2 User Interface Details

{ For each of these views please list all user interface elements that should be modified, added or removed. Please provide the textual appearance of the UI elements and their interactive behaviour. }

3.3 New User Interface Concepts

{ If the proposal introduces any completely new user interface elements, you might consult UI Kitchen Sink in order to find the necessary information to propose new UI-Concepts. Note that any maintainer might gladly assist you with this. }

3.4 Accessibility Implications

{ If the proposal contains potential accessibility issues that are neither covered by existing UI components nor clarified by guidelines, please list them here. For every potential issue please either propose a solution or write down a short risk assessment about potential fallout if there would be no solution for the issue. }

4 Technical Information

{ The maintainer has to provide necessary technical information, e.g. dependencies on other ILIAS components, necessary modifications in general services/architecture, potential security or performance issues. }

5 Privacy

{ Please list all personal data that will need to be stored or processed to implement this feature. For each date give a short explanation why it is necessary to use that date. }

6 Security

{ Does the feature include any special security relevant changes, e.g. the introducion of new endpoints or other new possible attack vectors. If yes, please explain these implications and include a commitment to deliver a written security concept as part of the feature development. This concept will need an additional approvement by the JourFixe. }

7 Contact

• Author of the Request: {Please add your name.}
• Maintainer: {Please add your name before applying for an initial workshop or a Jour Fixe meeting.}
• Implementation of the feature is done by: {The maintainer must add the name of the implementing developer.}

8 Funding

If you are interest in funding this feature, please add your name and institution to this list.

• …

9 Discussion

10 Implementation

{ The maintainer has to give a description of the final implementation and add screenshots if possible. }

Test Cases

Test cases completed at {date} by {user}

• {Test case number linked to Testrail} : {test case title}

Privacy

Information in privacy.md of component: updated on {date} by {user} | no change required

Approval

Approved at {date} by {user}.