JISC Enterprise SIG (Special Interest Group) - · PDF fileJISC Enterprise SIG (Special Interest Group) ... and a few e-learning and student record system vendors were ... • 1. moving

JISC Enterprise SIG (Special Interest Group)

4th Meeting Notes

The 4th Enterprise SIG Meeting was held in the Tower Building of London Metropolitan University (a merger of the University of North London and London Guildhall University) on Friday 9th Jan 2004. The meeting was kindly hosted by Paul Walk, Intranet Developer at London Met (and a member of the Enterprise SIG); and his manager, Mike O’Reilly, Head of the Intranet Services Team at the University. The meeting was attended by delegates from a range of backgrounds, including universities, FE colleges, UCAS and the Tate; and a few e-learning and student record system vendors were also present. Jim Farmer from the US who works on uPortal (a free, sharable framework for producing a customizable campus portal, developed by a range of JA-SIG member higher education institutions) and the new SAKAI project (a collaboration among several higher education institutions to develop and share open source software) attended, and kindly gave a quick impromptu introduction to his work during the afternoon session. Vashti Zarach, Enterprise SIG Coordinator: World of Enterprise I began the day by welcoming the participants, and encouraging them to contribute and ask questions. I gave a short presentation about the SIG, with an update on current news and forthcoming events. Current news included the new IMS Enterprise Specification (due to be publically released any day now), and the new JISC e-Learning Frameworks Programme (more details below). I also referred delegates to the Creating MLEs Infopack recently edited by Sarah Holyfield for the JISC, and encouraged people to read the technological sections in particular, and submit comments or references. I then displayed some figures from a recent UCISA VLE survey (HE based) (scroll down to 2003 survey) to demonstrate the extent (or lack) of systems integration in institutions. Paul Bailey has since supplied links to a Survey of VLE activity in FE in the UK (includes figures from HE for comparison); and a Study of MLE Activity.

I updated delegates on useful forthcoming meetings, notably the JISCInfonet When Worlds Collide Conference, in York on the 18th and 19th Feb, which will explore cultural differences between academic and systems practitioners and the management implications for institutions developing Managed Learning Environments. I also mentioned a forthcoming Vendors Meeting, designed to introduce vendors to the new Enterprise Services Specification, which Scott and I will be organizing. The meeting will probably be held sometime in March. More details when available. Paul Walk, Intranet Developer, London Met University: MISLine: Exposing Student Records. Paul Walk gave a very interesting presentation on MISLine; the creation of a web interface for exposing student records at the London Met. MISLine has made it far easier for university staff to manage student records; and has additionally exposed many inaccuracies in the data. Delegates discussed student data accuracy; including the importance of ensuring that inaccurate data was not being kept on students, and the problems of allocating responsibility for correcting potentially large amounts of inaccurate data. We also discussed the difficulties of obtaining accurate module attendance data in the early stages of term when students were still deciding on their options. Paul has tailored MISLine in order to ensure that appropriate amounts of student data are revealed by MISLine in different circumstances. For example, many library staff are students, and therefore MISLine only displays basic student data to library desk staff. Jim Farmer inquired about the reasons for MISLine’s success with users; which Paul put down to: 1) gathering user requirements at the start of the project, and 2) having designed a self-explanatory and highly usable web application interface. There is an MISLine User Guide on the London Met website, with screenshots of MISLine. Scott Wilson, Assistant Director, CETIS: IMS Enterprise Services Specification We apologised for the absence of Nick Sharples, currently still working on an Enterprise Services Demonstration Kit to assist people implementing the new specification. The Kit should be ready for demonstration at the next Enterprise SIG Meeting (to be held in about

April). The Kit will additionally be demonstrated at an earlier meeting for vendors, which Scott and Vashti are planning, in order to introduce vendors to the new Enterprise Services Specification. The Enterprise Services Specification is the Web Services version of the existing Enterprise Specification. The Enterprise Spec outlines data formats for data to be transferred between systems, but does not specify how data is to be transferred between systems. The new Specification aims to remedy this situation by providing transport mechanisms. Scott gave a technical presentation about the Spec, and handed out some examples of code. He explained that with previous specifications, people had been overwhelmed by the documentation; and hence the Enterprise SIG had funded the Demonstration Kit, which would contain a Java library set of example applications. The Public Draft of the Enterprise Specification should be available on the IMS website sometime during this week (early Jan 2004). Tish Roberts, JISC: e-Learning Frameworks Programme JISC have set up a new e-Learning Programme, comprising three strands: e-learning and pedagogy; technical frameworks for e-learning; and innovation. Tish’s presentation introduced the Enterprise SIG to the aims of the e-Learning Technical Framework and Tools strand. The objectives of the programme (taken from JISC e-Learning Framework page) are to:

• develop a generic framework to join-up systems and support a diversity of pedagogic models and institutional types.

• establish the key current requirements of an e-learning system and define the ‘pool of services’ (applications and interfaces) needed to support e-learning.

• map, consider, inform, and be informed by existing development activities funded by the JISC (such as the IE, Grid, etc.) and relevant external activities.

• pilot or demonstrate exemplars of systems and tools that are based on open standards and that are solving interoperability problems.

• identify ‘gaps’ in software provision, standards and middleware that currently prevent institutions developing a coherent architecture and, where appropriate, commission the development of new tools and interfaces.

• create evaluation and dissemination strategies that will communicate main findings and recommendations to relevant stakeholders on a regular basis; regular feedback will be sought via working groups and wider consultation activities.

Tish asked delegates to submit expressions of interest, stating their skills (e.g. Java, UML modelling, XML, WSDL, .NET, J2EE, IMS standards, etc), and potential time available for working on short or long projects. JISC will be commissioning short projects testing and developing tools (e.g. testing tools developed in existing projects), and longer projects spanning a couple of years, (e.g. demonstrating specific user scenarios that cross traditional boundaries, or integrating products / tools / services and standards). The programme intends to identify gaps, and develop Open Source tools to fill these gaps. JISC will also be developing an infrastructure to support the projects, and is currently working with CETIS to provide a developer bay where developers can collaborate and share tools, find references and resources, carry out plug fests, use testing facilities and toolkits, etc. There is already a call for a Scoping Study to inform the new Frameworks Programme up on the JISC website (tenders to be submitted by 30th January). We also distributed an article by Scott Wilson, entitled: Case for a Technical Framework to support MLEs and e-Learning. End of notes, thank you.

44tthh CCEETTIISS EEnntteerrpprriissee SSIIGG MMeeeettiinngg,, LLoonnddoonn MMeettrrooppoolliittaann UUnniivveerrssiittyy,, FFrriiddaayy 99tthh JJaann 22000044

DDeelleeggaattee LLiisstt Name Job Title Organization / Institution Email Address 1 Bailey Paul JISC Programme

Manager University of Bristol [email protected]

2 Banks Bob Senior Consultant FDLearning [email protected] 3 Burton Rosemary Business Systems

Analyst Oxford Brookes University [email protected]

4 Butterworth Annetta E-Learning Curator Tate [email protected] 5 Cupit David Project Design

Manager University of Manchester [email protected]

6 Eanor Matthew Media Development Officer

City University [email protected]

7 Farmer Jim uPortal Project Administrator

Immagic [email protected]

8 Franklin Tom Consultant Franklin Consulting [email protected] 9 Horton Roz Applications Developer University of London External

Programme [email protected]

10 Jamshidnejad Bahman Distance Learning Officer

University of Essex [email protected]

11 Lee Mike CIS Project Leader Waltham Forest College [email protected] 12 Marsden Peter Database Development

Manager University of London External Programme

[email protected]

13 Meara Dave Head of Strategic Planning

The Open University [email protected]

14 Morrey Martin Product Director Intrallect Ltd m/[email protected]

15 Noble Howard Educational Interoperability Specialist

Oxford University [email protected]

16 Norman John Director of CARET University of Cambridge [email protected] 17 O’Hare David MIS Developer NIIMLE [email protected] 18 Paull Alan Programme Manager UCAS [email protected] 19 Roberts Tish Programme Manager JISC [email protected] 20 Rowett Jon MLE Developer Brockenhurst College [email protected] 21 Scaife Daragh CTO CampusIT [email protected] 22 Spencer Russ MIS Team Leader Cranfield University [email protected] 23 Stubbs Mark Principal Lecturer Manchester Metropolitan University [email protected] 24 Walk Paul Intranet Developer London Metropolitan University [email protected] 25 Wilson Scott CETIS Assistant

Director University of Wales, Bangor [email protected]

26 Wong James Developer SITS Ltd [email protected] 27 Zarach Vashti CETIS Enterprise SIG

Coordinator University of Wales, Bangor [email protected]

The World of Enterprise (CETIS Enterprise SIG

4th Meeting)

Vashti ZarachCETIS Enterprise SIG Coordinator

Content of Talk

• 1. About CETIS and the Enterprise SIG

• 2. 4th Enterprise SIG Meeting: Agenda

• 3. News

• 4. Forthcoming Events

CETIS

• Centre for Educational Technology Interoperability Standards

• Funded by JISC, managed from Bolton Institute in partnership with University of Wales, Bangor

• Represents UK FE and HE on international learning standards initiatives

• Disseminates info on learning technology standards and gathers feedback from the UK e-learning community, mostly via SIGs

• http://www.cetis.ac.uk/

CETIS and the SIGs

• Metadata

• Educational Content / ECSIG

• Accessibility

• Assessment

• Learner Information Package / LIPSIG

• Enterprise

• FE Focus Group

• Pedagogy

CETIS Enterprise SIG: Remit

• 1. IMS Enterprise Specification

• 2. IMS Enterprise Services Specification

• 3. IMS Learner Information Package Specification (LIP)

• 4. Joining-up systems within Managed Learning Environments

IMS Enterprise Specification

• http://www.imsglobal.org/enterprise/index.cfm

• For exchanging basic data about batches of learners (name, address, gender, date of birth, email address, role). Response to two core tasks:

• 1. moving student enrolment data from the SRS to the VLE

• 2. transferring student exam and course results from the VLE to the SRS

• A generic specification, can be used for data exchange between variety of systems, e.g. VLEsand digital libraries.

IMS Enterprise Services Specification

• “The original Enterprise specification was based upon the description of the data model for the information to be exchanged between enterprise systems.”

• “The Enterprise Services Specification extends this work by adding a series of behavioural models that define how the data models are to be manipulated.” (ES Specification: Colin Smythe).

• Public Draft available on IMS Website 12th

Jan

• Public release of Spec April 2004

Learner Information Package (LIP) Specification

• Used for developing a learner profile for exchanging between systems, containing:

• Identification (personal data)

• Goals (learning and career goals)

• Qualifications

• Activities (formal and informal learning)

• Transcripts (academic achievement)

• Interests (hobbies), Competencies (skills)

• Affiliation (membership of organizations)

• Accessibility (disabilities / learning preferences).

Meeting Agenda

• Vashti Zarach: The World of Enterprise

• Paul Walk: Exposing Student Records

• Quick break

• Scott Wilson: Enterprise Services Specification

• Discussion: Course Identifiers

• Lunch

• Tish Roberts: “E-learning Frameworks”

• Tea and coffee

• Discussion: Group Typologies

Contents of Delegate Pack

• Meeting Agenda

• Delegate List

• Enterprise Briefing (Scott Wilson)

• Enterprise Services Specification Document

• Enterprise Services Overview (Colin Smythe)

• Case for Technical Framework (Scott Wilson)

• Enterprise Implementation Form

• Meeting Evaluation Form

News

• IMS Enterprise Services Specification

• Enterprise Web Services Development Kit

• JISC Framework Programme

• UCISA VLE Survey

• MLE Info Kit

Enterprise Web Services Demonstration Kit

• Tendered to Nick Sharples

• Presenting at next meeting

• “The IMS Global Learning Consortium is in the process of creating a specification for Enterprise Web Services, specifically tackling the issues of requesting and updating information on people and courses between learning management systems and student information systems.

• As part of CETIS’ involvement in this process, we have decided to develop a demonstrator for the emerging specification, to help us identify issues, and to provide a very simple package of reference code for developers looking to adopt the specification.”

News

• JISC Framework Programme

• http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=programme_frameworks

• See Scott Wilson’s “Case for a Technical Framework” (in delegate pack)

• Keen to encourage participation from Enterprise SIG (and general UK e-learning community)

UCISA VLE Survey 2003: General findings

• http://www.ucisa.ac.uk/groups/tlig/vle/index_html (Scrolll down to 2003 survey)

• Authors: Tom Brown and Martin Jenkins

• HE (Higher Education) based survey

• HE Institutions with VLE: 86% (of which 50.1% have more than 1 VLE)

• Most commonly used VLE: Blackboard (overtaken WebCT since 2001 survey)

UCISA VLE Survey 2003: VLE/MIS Integration

• 42% achieved creation of student accounts file for data transfer into VLE

• 29.5 % have achieved automated creation of student accounts in VLE from Student Records

• 23.9 have no link

• 20.5% achieved automatic creation of student access to courses / modules

• 2.3. linking assessment results

UCISA VLE Survey 2003: VLE/MIS Integration Table

3.4Not answered

23.9No link

4.5Other

20.512.9Assessment results

20.512.9Automatic creation of student access to sp courses/modules

42.09.7Creation of student accounts file for data transfer into VLE

29.522.6Automated creation of student accounts in VLE from student records

2003%2001%

UCISA VLE Survey 2003: VLE/Library Integration (HE)

-5-Online lib resources fully integrated

446438Some integration with VLE

332333No connection

22524No VLE

HE CollegesPost ’91%Pre ’91 %

Creating an MLE Info Kit

• http://toomolfileserv.bangor.ac.uk/

• “This guide aims to provide a start on building a rich and dynamic source of information and advice, but also to provide a mechanism for sharing experience and expertise.”

• Sections SIG members may particularly wish to look at: 4.Technology Options: http://toomolfileserv.bangor.ac.uk/4/

• Please contribute: send resources, comments and suggestions

Forthcoming Events

• “Beyond the Fringe” (Ferl online conference)

• Wed 28th – Thu 4th Feb

• http://ferl.becta.org.uk/display.cfm?resID=6293&page=72

Forthcoming Events

• “Towards making your Personal Development Planning/e-portfolio systems interoperable” (Workshop of the LIPSIG/JISC ‘MLEs for Lifelong Learning’ Programme)

• Thu 29th Jan

• Waterside Conference Centre, Wigan.

• Contact Gail Young: [email protected]

Forthcoming Events

• IMS Quarterly Meetings

• Tue 10th – Fri 13th Feb

• Zurich, Switzerland

• Enterprise Services team meeting Thu and Fri

• http://www.imsglobal.org/

Forthcoming Events

• “When Worlds Collide” (Jisc infoNet)

• Wed 18th – Thu 19th Feb

• Le Meridien Royal York Hotel, York

• Exploring cultural differences between academic and systems practitioners, and the management implications for institutions developing MLEs

• Day 1: Presentations; Day 2: Thinktank

• http://www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk/Events/wwc_conference

Forthcoming Events

• Vendors’ Meeting to introduce the IMS Enterprise Services Specification

• To be organized by Vashti Zarach / Scott Wilson

• Feb / March

Forthcoming Events

• 5th Enterprise SIG Meeting

• Probably in April

• Please contact [email protected] if you are willing to host the meeting or give a presentation

• Suggestions and requests welcome

Links

• Enterprise SIG JISCMail list: http://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/IMS-ENTERPRISE.html

• Enterprise SIG Website: http://www.cetis.ac.uk/members/enterprise/

• CETIS: http://www.cetis.ac.uk

• IMS: http://www.imsglobal.org

• Contact: [email protected]

MISLineMISLine

Exposing Student RecordsExposing Student Records

Paul WalkPaul WalkJanuary 2004January 2004

ContentsContents

!! MISLineMISLine version 1version 1

!! current developmentcurrent development

!! MISLineMISLine version 2version 2

!! future developmentfuture development

ContextContextUniversity of North London, 1999University of North London, 1999

!! SITS Student Record System (SRS)SITS Student Record System (SRS)

!! steadily increasing number of userssteadily increasing number of users

!! locally installed ‘thick’ client requiredlocally installed ‘thick’ client required

The ProblemThe Problem

!! limit of <100 concurrent client connectionslimit of <100 concurrent client connections

!! complexity of client (training, support)complexity of client (training, support)

!! maintaining locally installed client (upgrades)maintaining locally installed client (upgrades)

ProposalProposal

!! form crossform cross--team projectteam project!! MIS TeamMIS Team

!! knowledge of SITS databaseknowledge of SITS database!! SQL/Oracle development skillsSQL/Oracle development skills!! understanding of userunderstanding of user--requirementsrequirements

!! Intranet Services TeamIntranet Services Team!! web application development skills and infrastructureweb application development skills and infrastructure!! expertise with webexpertise with web--database solutionsdatabase solutions!! SQL skillsSQL skills

!! develop readdevelop read--only webonly web--interface for SRSinterface for SRS

!! call the new web application ‘call the new web application ‘MISLine’MISLine’

SolutionSolution

!! Oracle Oracle –– custom tables and views added to custom tables and views added to SITS DatabaseSITS Database

!! HTML 3.2HTML 3.2

!! ColdFusion ColdFusion –– server side scriptingserver side scripting

!! Javascript Javascript (mainly for input validation)(mainly for input validation)

!! database connectiondatabase connection--poolingpooling

MISLine MISLine ScreenshotScreenshot

OutcomeOutcome

!! responsive, intuitive web applicationresponsive, intuitive web application

!! very positive feedbackvery positive feedback

!! large userlarge user--base requiring no supportbase requiring no support

!! increased information transparency increased information transparency -- exposedexposedlack of accuracy in datalack of accuracy in data

!! even users who needed to use the thick client even users who needed to use the thick client adopted MISLine for some tasksadopted MISLine for some tasks

ContextContextLondon Metropolitan University, 2002London Metropolitan University, 2002

!! mergermerger of University of North London with of University of North London with London Guildhall University to form London London Guildhall University to form London Metropolitan UniversityMetropolitan University

!! SITS used by both legacy institutionsSITS used by both legacy institutions

!! twotwo ‘campuses’: North and City‘campuses’: North and City

!! MISLine MISLine for North Campus records onlyfor North Campus records only

New ProblemsNew Problems

!! SITS databases merged, but not completelySITS databases merged, but not completely

!! issuesissues with existing with existing MISLineMISLine::!! hundreds of unidentified users hundreds of unidentified users using generic using generic

departmental accounts departmental accounts -- no auditingno auditing!! unsecured browser connectionsunsecured browser connections!! not designed to be redeployednot designed to be redeployed!! becoming dated (HTML 3.2)becoming dated (HTML 3.2)

!! nono equivalent of equivalent of MISLine MISLine for City Campusfor City Campus

ProposalProposal

!! form crossform cross--team, crossteam, cross--campus projectcampus project!! develop new develop new MISLine MISLine for City Campusfor City Campus

!! Introduce user and roleIntroduce user and role--based authentication based authentication and authorisation.and authorisation.

!! reuse tables/views/SQL from existingreuse tables/views/SQL from existing MISLineMISLine

!! develop new business logic components in Java develop new business logic components in Java to expose student records as XMLto expose student records as XML

!! develop new presentation layer to transform develop new presentation layer to transform XML into XHTMLXML into XHTML

!! call the new web application ‘call the new web application ‘MISLineMISLine 2’2’

SolutionSolution

!! Oracle Oracle –– existing custom tables and views existing custom tables and views added to SITS Databaseadded to SITS Database

!! Clustered & loadClustered & load--balanced Tomcat serversbalanced Tomcat servers!! LDAP based authentication and authorisationLDAP based authentication and authorisation

!! Apache & SSLApache & SSL

!! Clustered J2EE web application:Clustered J2EE web application:!! Javabeans Javabeans components producing XMLcomponents producing XML!! JSP + Jakarta tag librariesJSP + Jakarta tag libraries!! Stylesheets Stylesheets (XSL and CSS)(XSL and CSS)!! Java Authentication & Authorisation Services (JAAS)Java Authentication & Authorisation Services (JAAS)

SoftwareSoftware!! Server Products:Server Products:

!! Redhat Redhat Linux 9Linux 9!! Apache web server v2.0Apache web server v2.0!! Tomcat application server v4.1Tomcat application server v4.1!! JSP Standard Tag Library (JSTL) v1.1JSP Standard Tag Library (JSTL) v1.1!! Open SSL v0.9Open SSL v0.9!! Openldap Openldap v2.1v2.1

!! Development tools and libraries:Development tools and libraries:!! Java JDK 1.4Java JDK 1.4!! Eclipse IDE v2.1Eclipse IDE v2.1!! JEdit JEdit v4.2v4.2!! Mozilla Mozilla v1.4v1.4!! JDOM v0.9JDOM v0.9

!! Extensive use of openExtensive use of open--source software. Everything source software. Everything listed here is free!listed here is free!

MISLine2 ScreenshotMISLine2 Screenshot

<?<?xmlxml version="1.0" encoding="UTFversion="1.0" encoding="UTF--8"?>8"?>

<<istPortletistPortlet title="Students Taking DF311 2003/4 SEM1"title="Students Taking DF311 2003/4 SEM1" helpURIhelpURI=""="" recordCountrecordCount=“6">=“6">

<<portletBodyportletBody>>

<record><record>

<<statuscodestatuscode><![CDATA[EE]]></><![CDATA[EE]]></statuscodestatuscode>>

<<statustitlestatustitle><![CDATA[ENROLLED]]></><![CDATA[ENROLLED]]></statustitlestatustitle>>

<surname><![CDATA[BARDEN]]></surname><surname><![CDATA[BARDEN]]></surname>

<forename><![CDATA[RICHARD]]></forename><forename><![CDATA[RICHARD]]></forename>

<<studentidstudentid><![CDATA[M111499/1]]></><![CDATA[M111499/1]]></studentidstudentid>>

<<coursecodecoursecode><![CDATA[U/DDE/A]]></><![CDATA[U/DDE/A]]></coursecodecoursecode>>

<<coursetitlecoursetitle><![CDATA[BA FURNITURE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY]]></><![CDATA[BA FURNITURE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY]]></coursetitlecoursetitle>>

<<routecoderoutecode><![CDATA[ADDE]]></><![CDATA[ADDE]]></routecoderoutecode>>

<<routetitleroutetitle><![CDATA[Furniture Design & Technology]]></><![CDATA[Furniture Design & Technology]]></routetitleroutetitle>>

</record></record>

</</portletBodyportletBody>>

</</istPortletistPortlet>>

XML RecordXML Record

<?<?xmlxml version="1.0" encoding="UTFversion="1.0" encoding="UTF--8"?>8"?>

<<istPortletistPortlet title="Students Taking DF311 2003/4 SEM1"title="Students Taking DF311 2003/4 SEM1" helpURIhelpURI=""="" recordCountrecordCount="2">="2">

<<portletBodyportletBody>>

<record><record>

<<statuscodestatuscode><![CDATA[EE]]></><![CDATA[EE]]></statuscodestatuscode>>

<<statustitlestatustitle><![CDATA[ENROLLED]]></><![CDATA[ENROLLED]]></statustitlestatustitle>>

<surname><![CDATA[BARDEN]]></surname><surname><![CDATA[BARDEN]]></surname>

<forename><![CDATA[RICHARD]]></forename><forename><![CDATA[RICHARD]]></forename>

<<studentidstudentid><![CDATA[M111499/1]]></><![CDATA[M111499/1]]></studentidstudentid>>

<<coursecodecoursecode><![CDATA[U/DDE/A]]></><![CDATA[U/DDE/A]]></coursecodecoursecode>>

<<coursetitlecoursetitle><![CDATA[BA FURNITURE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY]]></><![CDATA[BA FURNITURE DESIGN & TECHNOLOGY]]></coursetitlecoursetitle>>

<<routecoderoutecode><![CDATA[ADDE]]></><![CDATA[ADDE]]></routecoderoutecode>>

<<routetitleroutetitle><![CDATA[Furniture Design & Technology]]></><![CDATA[Furniture Design & Technology]]></routetitleroutetitle>>

</record></record>

</</portletBodyportletBody>>

</</istPortletistPortlet>>

OutcomeOutcome

!! launched Dec 2003 after extensive betalaunched Dec 2003 after extensive beta--testingtesting

!! has proven the viability of:has proven the viability of:!! JAAS & LDAP for user/roleJAAS & LDAP for user/role--based authentication & authorisationbased authentication & authorisation!! clustering & loadclustering & load--balancing Tomcat serversbalancing Tomcat servers!! XML & XSLT in webXML & XSLT in web--applications applications -- performanceperformance

!! feedback so far very positivefeedback so far very positive

!! some spinoffs:some spinoffs:!! java/xml components reused to propogate new student userjava/xml components reused to propogate new student user--

accounts from SRS to various systems (e.g. library system, accounts from SRS to various systems (e.g. library system, WebCT, email system).WebCT, email system).

Current DevelopmentsCurrent Developments

!! reusing reusing JavabeanJavabean components to form JSR168components to form JSR168portletsportlets to allow students to see their own to allow students to see their own records in a student portal.records in a student portal.

!! redeploying redeploying Javabean Javabean components with a Web components with a Web Services layer, providing:Services layer, providing:!! Web Services for Remote Web Services for Remote PortletsPortlets (WSRP) (WSRP) portletsportlets!! components in a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)components in a Service Oriented Architecture (SOA)

Flexible componentsFlexible components

Future DevelopmentsFuture Developments

!! rere--use use Javabeans forJavabeans for IMS Enterprise IMS Enterprise transactions to form core components for an transactions to form core components for an MLE. Some preliminary development work done MLE. Some preliminary development work done with linking SRS to with linking SRS to WebCT WebCT using IMS API.using IMS API.

!! rere--use use MISLine MISLine 2 framework with other 2 framework with other datasourcesdatasources. Plans to use this approach to . Plans to use this approach to provide student/staff access to timetables & provide student/staff access to timetables & room booking information in CMIS system.room booking information in CMIS system.

Ideal FutureIdeal Future

!! Vendors provide Web Services for their Vendors provide Web Services for their products, so we don’t have to.products, so we don’t have to.

!! MIS Vendors adopt standards, especially IMS.MIS Vendors adopt standards, especially IMS.

http://www.cetis.ac.ukcetis

Enterprise Web Services

By Scott Wilson, CETIS


The IMS specification

• Public draft is out next week - if they fix some bugs we found!

• Final release of 1.0 in April


The Demonstration Kit

• Underway at moment - initial release due February

• Java library to simplify implementation of ES using Apache AXIS

• Simple application examples in JSP• MS may create similar kit for .Net


Implementing Enterprise Services

• Service providers and consumers alike require:– hooks into existing application layer or database– SOAP handlers configured according to the

Enterprise WSDL– XML marshalling/unmarshalling to translate

messages into objects for manipulation


Creating the SOAP handlers• Implement a HTTP+SOAP server framework, such as a

J2EE application server (with AXIS) or products from the .Net server family

• Provide the Enterprise service handlers:– Use the library being developed by CETIS– Generate code from the IMS Enterprise WSDL file using

WSDL2Java utility or Visual Studio “Import Web Definition” feature

– Hand-code the handlers based on the WSDL or UML interface specification


Marshalling and unmarshalling XML

• Use the library being developed by CETIS• Use the AXIS javabean mapping facility to automate• Use JAXB• Use the .Net framework automated C# mapping facility• Write custom marshal/unmarshal methods using JDOM

or similar


Using the library• Implements all Enterprise interfaces, and handles

conversion between Java and XML• Reports all exceptions using IMS “statusInfo” codes


Lets look at some code!


Implementing consumers with scripting languages

• Languages like PHP, Python, and AppleScript have some simple SOAP or XML-RPC handling capabilities. Capabilities vary, and tend towards simple RPC support

• ASP can easily incorporate modules written in C# or Java using COM that can then handle web services

• JSP can easily incorporate modules written in Java, either called directly within Java or accessed by TagLibs.

• Possible to implement simple read-only clients very quickly


Extending Enterprise Services

• There are three main extension approaches:– Extending the data models with additional property-

value pairs– Complex data model additions and modifications– Providing additional methods


Adding properties to objects• Each main class in the Enterprise bindings can have an

extension object• This contains an array of extField objects, which

comprise a fieldName and a fieldValue attribute.• This can be used to create basic extensions to the

models without affecting marshalling/unmarshalling and service validation


<group><sourcedId>bangor.ac.uk:10101</sourcedId><description><descShort>CY1112</descShort></description><groupType>

<scheme>UK-HE</scheme><typeValue><type>Module</type><level>2</level></typeValue>

</groupType><extension>

<extField><fieldName>LanguageOfInstruction</fieldName><fieldValue>Welsh</fieldValue>

</extField></extension>

</group>


Complex data model extensions

• Beyond adding a couple of properties• Proprietary developments of enterprise

models, typically for “value added” between partner systems


Complex data model extensions• NOT supported as part of standard Enterprise

Services• To use a value-added data model, need to

create a new interface that inherits from the IMS ES interfaces

• This interface should use a separate service binding if it overrides any methods

• Supporting a value-added interface does NOT qualify as being conformant!


QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.





Extending behaviours

• When you need to perform other operations with Enterprise objects

• New operations defined in separate interface• May use the same service binding as the IMS

interface





Limitations

• No querying functionality - yet• No major revisions of data model

Supporting further and higher education

E-learning Framework and Tools

Tish Roberts JISC Programme Manager

Draft Aim

To produce and test the use of a generic technical framework for e-learning systems which will allow the FE/HE community to create MLE architectures to support their e-learning strategies, and develop tools and interfaces where appropriate.

E-Learning Technical Framework

Objective - Develop a technical framework that support a diversity of pedagogic models and institutional types.

• articulate a shared understanding of the technical systems that are needed to support a wide variety of e-learning approaches based around a generic, modular framework.

Technical Framework to Support E-learning v.1

The core of the framework has this set of deliverables:-

• A list of services identified within the frameworkFor each service:– The definition of the scope and purpose of the service– List of applicable standards and specifications– Information on open-source toolkits – List of prior work of value, such as projects and case

studies, or demonstrations projects using the service– Information on shared services offered on an ASP

basis, e.g. relevant JISC IE services

• General guidance on creating, exposing, and consuming services

User Agents

Application Services

Common Services

Institutional Infrastructures (TCP/IP etc)


Common Services

Activity MgtSequencing

Collaboration

Search

ContentMgt

UserMssaging Authentication AuthorizationDRM Identifier

Activity(auth)

Packaging

Cataloguing

Assessment

Grading

Competency

Profile

PortfolioGroup Mgt

Course Mgt

Scheduling

Resource Mgt

StatusInfo

LearningFlow

Hierarchy Logging Filing Workflow

ResourceList

Pres./Archive

Service Res. M.Schema R.

Development activity

• Primarily concentrated on providing libraries that enable developers (from commercial as well as open-source communities)to create applications that provide and consume services defined within the framework.

• Test and Demonstrator projects are aimed at testing out the service definitions and toolkits in actual use.

Test Projects

• a series of short tightly defined project that test a specific products ( API, OSRI,IOAgents ) developed by other initatives(OKI, other JISC projects, IMS etc ) that implement relevant standards.

• Output not only test framework, but also adds to developer toolkit which can be re-used by wider community

Demonstrator projects

Larger scale projects that are proof of concepts, – demonstrating specific user scenarios that

cross traditional boundaries, – a vertical slice of the problem domain. will

integrate products, tools and service using standards to demonstrate feasibility and possibilities

(eg Collaborative Online and Information Services COLIS http://www.colis.mq.edu.au/ )

Development BaySupport the development work of test and demonstrator projects

and the wider educational development community. This would include access to:-• Collaboration tools to support joint development activity (Wikis,

Blogs, discussion boards etc )• Reference set (service definition, UML diagramme, user

requirement etc)• Software toolkits (source foundry ?)• Testing facilities ( servers side testing )• On-line plug fests• Standards and implementation guidance

• Others in the e-learning technology development community

Use Cases

Starting point for the framework been the “very high level Use Case” of learner-centred education - extreme simplification.

- evolution of this framework depends upon teasing out the complexities of much finer-grained processes and

- looking at learning and teaching from a variety of viewpoints,

- remit of the sister pedagogy strand of this programme

Map existing framework

Objective - consider, inform, and be informed by existing development activities funded by the JISC (IE, Grid,) and relevant external activities (OKI, IMS)

• to gather knowledge of frameworks and current institutional architectures / models to feed into the Framework doc

Requirements’ gathering

Objective :- to achieve an understanding of the current needs of e-learning system users

• Define Users and Stakeholders • Establish requirements - define the

‘pool of services’ (applications and interfaces) to support e-learning.

• Collate existing Use cases and test against the framework.

Decision-making and support

Objective:- to put in place appropriate decision-making and support structures for the programme activities

• Constant review and consultation with experts and the community is a very important aspect of this programme.

• Development + Dissemination via Creating MLE infoKit style site

Tools to fill the Gaps

Objective - Identify the ‘gaps’ in software provision, standards and middleware that currently prevent an institution from the development of a coherent architecture

• where appropriate, commission the development of new tools and interfaces.

Some other goals

International effort:-• JISC is not intending to tackle it

all• Work with and use work others(IMS, OKI, NSF, Internet2 etc )• All development Open source • Support + encourage

development community

Involving the SIGs

• Community of expertise/practitioner's

• Consultation and engagement • Help us identify priority areas• Test + Demonstrate • Produce tools • Research, short studies,

(definitions – groups )• Dissemination

Skills

• Programming – Java, C#, Python• UML modelling• XML• WSDL• Knowledge of standards • .NET, J2EE• Availability, ie- x day/per/week

Priorities

Which service should we concentrate on first

List and prioritise 3

1- Authentication2- Assessment3-Course management


Common Services

Activity MgtSequencing

Collaboration

Search

ContentMgt

UserMssaging Authentication AuthorizationDRM Identifier

Activity(auth)

Packaging

Cataloguing

Assessment

Grading

Competency

Profile

PortfolioGroup Mgt

Course Mgt

Scheduling

Resource Mgt

StatusInfo

LearningFlow

Hierarchy Logging Filing Workflow

ResourceList

Pres./Archive

Service Res. M.Schema R.

Further Information

MLEs - http://www.jisc.ac.uk/mleE-learning Frameworks

http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=elearning_framework

E-learning Pedagogy http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=elearning_pedagogy

Framework Programme site -http://www.jisc.ac.uk/index.cfm?name=programme_frameworks

When Worlds Collide

Providing Expertise in Planning & Implementing Information Systems

A conference to explore cultural differencesbetween academic & systems practitioners and themanagement implications for institutions developing

Managed Learning Environments.

18th/19th February 2004

Le Meridien Hotel, York

Bookings taken from DecemberVisit: www.jiscinfonet.ac.uk

The case for a technical framework to support MLEs and e-Learning Scott Wilson, CETIS Version 1, Oct 03

Why do we need a technical framework If we look at most “Managed Learning Environments” today, whether implemented or planned, they tend to look something like this:

So, we have three main systems occupying the main vertical spaces within an institution, and maybe some portal that links the functions together at the end-user level. There is usually some amount of communication between the components, which becomes more obvious when we open up the boxes to see what these components actually contain:

The communication going on between the components is often because there is considerable overlap of functions and data within the components. Each system tries to manage authentication (making single sign-on more difficult), and each system maintains a complete picture of courses, groups and student enrolments. These overlapping functions mean a lot of data replication is needed to keep the parts in synchronization. On the other hand, what if we took some of these shared functions out of these applications?

Several things have now changed:

- There is no need to replicate data – everyone is using the same common data sources

- The individual parts of the MLE are a lot smaller – therefore they contain a lot less actual code, so should be cheaper and easier to write and maintain

- The shared parts of the MLE need to have very well defined interfaces so that our main application components can all make use of them.

Now, it may not be the case that we physically remove all the packages of functionality from the applications – we may simply choose to let one system provide each piece of functionality as a service instead. (It may also be the case that we can’t make some of these common functions into shared services - for various reasons - within a particular institution.) When we embark on this kind of analysis, identifying the parts of the MLE at a more granular level than monolithic systems, then we eventually end up with a framework of service descriptions. We are no longer interested so much in replicating data between large systems, but instead focus on what kinds of services are needed in the overall architecture to provide certain kinds of behaviour from applications.

What advantages does this approach have over the “giant components” approach we started out with? First, we no longer specify the actual architecture of an MLE in terms of its components, but only concern ourselves – at a JISC level - with the shared services that provide its functions. This means that institutions have the flexibility to build an MLE from components of any size and aggregation and yet still take advantage of standardisation efforts. Second, institutions, vendors and the open-source community can contribute solutions in the FE & HE space from a much lower cost base. Because components can deliver a small set of functions yet take advantage of a great deal of shared services (e.g. Authentication, Authorization, Course/Student information) then application code is smaller, easier to maintain, and easy to port between institutions which have been using the framework for their service infrastructure. At the moment, every application has to effectively build a replica of the whole institution infrastructure internally. This also means we enable applications to be developed that support a broader range of user tasks, including those tasks that span multiple areas of responsibility (teaching, information management, administration). Third, we begin to share a vocabulary with which institutions can discuss the technical aspects of an MLE, enabling sharing of best practice, and facilitating collaborative development. Finally, by opening up the “black box” of the VLE and other major components, we make possible a far more diverse range of approaches to e-learning within institutions without sacrificing either interoperability or the ability to collaborate and reuse resources and software.

What does the framework do? The framework supports the development by institutions of their own architectures, using a flexible service-oriented approach. The framework does not aim to build a generic MLE or VLE, in fact one of the primary goals of the framework is to encourage “coherent diversity”, by providing common toolkits and service definitions which can then be used to meet the diverse goals of the HE and FE community. As an analogy, the framework provides a vocabulary and grammar – it is up to individual institutions to write the stories. Although the framework provides support for institutions developing service-oriented architectures, it does not presume that all institutions will want to do so, or that those who do adopt this approach will want to do so across the whole of the organisation.

What is ”Service Oriented Architecture”? A service-oriented architecture (SOA) is an approach to joining up systems within enterprises. It is a relatively new approach, but is rapidly gaining popularity because of the low costs of integration coupled with flexibility and ease of configuration. SOA builds upon the experience of using Web Services for integration. In an SOA, the application logic contained in the various systems across the organisation – such as student record systems, library management systems, VLEs, directories and so on – are exposed as services, which can then be consumed by other applications. For example, a student record system may expose services for working with enrolment and registration information, which can then be used within a VLE or library system (figure 1).

Figure 1: Course management within a service-oriented architecture This approach is somewhat different to two other common ways of integrating systems, which are to integrate at the user interface level using portals, or at the data level by creating large combined datasets (figure 2.)

Figure 2: Different approaches to integration

A service-oriented approach does not preclude also using portals or data warehouses, and is in fact pretty agnostic about how the rest of the enterprise is configured, which is why it makes a good approach for a framework. However, because integration occurs in this fashion, it becomes a very simple task to replace the systems that provide services within the architecture. Because service consumers are configured to access a service without any knowledge of the system that provides the service, we can replace the underlying system without affecting any systems dependent on its capabilities (figure 3.)

There are other integration approaches that also operate at the application logic level:

- CORBA - J2EE

- DCOM However, these technologies are either very costly to implement (CORBA) or restrict platform choice across the organisation (J2EE, DCOM). Web services can take advantage of existing integration using these approaches, however, and many service implementations build upon J2EE integration. In summary, service-oriented architectures have a number of features that make them attractive for MLEs.

- They are agnostic with regard to platform choices and types of existing systems - They are relatively inexpensive to implement - Services can be used without knowledge of the system providing the service,

allowing systems to be replaced without causing widespread disruption - Services enable non-replaceable legacy systems to interact with new applications - By providing access to functionality rather than user interfaces or data it enables

institutions and departments to develop applications that relate better to the tasks they want to perform without duplicating the functionality of existing systems, but instead leveraging existing investment in software.

- Service-based architectures can be easily reconfigured to meet changing operational requirements or reflect organisational change.

How does the framework help? The framework is intended to support development of flexible, service-oriented architectures in a number of ways:

- Providing a reference set of service definitions - Providing toolkits to assist developers - Coordinating related efforts such as standards and shared services

By providing a common set of service definitions, we enable communities to have a shared vocabulary for discussing their MLE and e-Learning activity. Just as the BECTA MLE diagram assisted institutions in the earlier phases of MLE development, the framework enables different institutions in different sectors to communicate with one another and the JISC about their technical challenges. By providing toolkits – not complete solutions – we both enable institutions to build solutions, and also provide assistance for both the commercial sector and the open source community to provide solutions that operate within institutional architectures. Because we have a shared understanding of the problem space, the areas of concern within the community can be communicated to the JISC so that other efforts – such as the work of CETIS and UKOLN – can be targeted more effectively to solve the pressing needs of the community.

Applications developed using the framework for guidance can, because they have a common specification, be reused far more easily by other institutions, facilitating collaboration between institutions, and inter-institutional integration.

How does the framework provide value for money? The core of the framework has a small set of deliverables:

- A list of services identified within the framework - For each service:

o The definition of the scope and purpose of the service o List of applicable standards and specifications o Information on open-source toolkits developed by the programme o List of prior work of value, such as projects and case studies, or

demonstration projects using the service o Information on shared services offered on an ASP basis, for example

relevant JISC IE services - General guidance on creating, exposing, and consuming services

Note that we are interested in producing toolkits for the framework rather than complete solutions. This is because we want to encourage a diverse range of software for institutions to choose from, both open-source and commercial. Therefore, development activity for the framework is primarily concentrated on providing libraries that enable developers (again, from commercial as well as open-source communities) to create applications that provide and consume services defined within the framework. Demonstrator projects are aimed at testing out the service definitions and toolkits in actual use. By developing these libraries and toolkits and providing them free-of-charge we reduce substantially the cost of creating software based on services defined in the framework, and reduce the cost of entry to a service-oriented architecture for UK institutions. We also don’t want to build large pieces of software such as content management systems, as these are very complex pieces of software (and there are plenty of commercial and open-source solutions available). It may be the case that there are some parts of the framework for which there is demand from the JISC community but no available solutions from vendors or the open-source community, in which case it may be necessary to build an open-source reference implementation to fill the gap. This is not the ideal approach, however. Overall, then, the strategy is to create small, tightly scoped pieces of development work that will have maximum impact on the sector. There will be no “white elephants”.

How sustainable is this activity? It is not envisaged that JISC will manage the definitions of all the services in the framework in perpetuity, but instead work with other organisations to create and maintain these definitions. Many of the services identified in the work so far overlap with work by the Open Knowledge Initiative at MIT, and the efforts of the IMS Global Learning Consortium, Internet2 and other initiatives. Rather than go it alone, JISC needs to develop the framework in partnership, and consider “exit strategies” for service definitions, including handing over the work to national (e.g. BSI) or global (e.g. ISO, IMS) standards and specifications consortia and organisations. The toolkits that accompany the framework will be managed through the open-source community. Because these toolkits will be used as integral components within a wide range of products, applications, and services, they are far more likely to garner input from open-source developers than previous educational OS efforts at supplying whole applications such as VLEs. It is also likely that some of these toolkits will be adopted as reference models when accompanying definitions are handed off to BSI, ISO etc.

Resources The Benefits of a Service-Oriented Architecture, Michael Stevens, Developer.com (http://www.developer.com/services/article.php/1041191) Service-Oriented Architecture Introduction (2 parts), Michael Stevens, Developer.com (http://www.developer.com/services/article.php/1010451) http://www.service-architecture.com/ Service-Oriented Architecture Explained, Sayed Hashimi, O’Reilly (http://www.ondotnet.com/pub/a/dotnet/2003/08/18/soa_explained.html) Succeeding at Service Oriented Architecture, Bill Ruh, ZDNet (http://www.zdnet.com.au/builder/architect/work/story/0,2000034884,20276810,00.htm)

Documents

JISC Enterprise SIG (Special Interest Group) - · PDF fileJISC Enterprise SIG (Special Interest Group) ... and a few e-learning and student record system vendors were ... • 1. moving