OpenLW reference architecture project

author: Eric Kluijfhout, eric.kluijfhout@gmail.com 

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike License.

To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses or send a letter to Creative Commons, 559 Nathan Abbott Way, Stanford, California

94305, USA.

 

OpenLW reference architecture project

2004-2006

Eric Kluijfhout

Outline

Project definition

Project set-up

Activities & outcomes

Project conclusions & HE state of the art

SURF activities 2007

Problem 2004

VLE of the future?

Trends en new mandate HE

Technology

trends

Institutional VLE

experiences

requirements?

relevance?

new needs?

Project definition: March-June 2005

Technology-trends analysis - architectures:

• national

• international

• commercial

• non-commercial

Institutional experiences and needs – stakeholder

consultation: • Digital University consortium

• SURF

• E-merge consortium

• Apollo consortium

Trends and HE mandate – desk study + interviews

Outcomes project definition: mid 2005

VLE of the future?

Trends en new mandate HE

Technology

trends

Institutional VLE

experiences

Desk study

Architecture

analysis

Stakeholder

consultation

Stakeholder-consultation

Wide range in levels of VLE use and ambitions within and between HE institutions

Hardly any relation to educational model - VLE mainly used as a logistical system

Discrepancies between central VLE policies and local implementation

Demand for tools to communicate, plan and manage VLE use

Demand for sharing information on new trends VLE architecture is part of the overall application

architecture

Architecture analysis

Also the commercial VLE providers move

towards component-based systems and SOA –

interoperability but no interchange

SAKAI, ELF and IMS-AF internationally best

known initiatives – but important differences

Within the Netherlands a number of initiatives

towards reference architecture definition

soa as a first step towards SOA?

Desk study HE trends

The knowledge society Life long learning Globalisation Regionalisation From supply- towards demand driven The new students Towards an open HE market HE as an initiator of innovation Continued cost reductions Increasing complex society

Project credo

Instead of asking

“How to select the best VLE package for

our institution?”

We should be looking for ways

“How to manage the continuous changes

in needs and opportunities?”

Open Learning and Working Environment

Aim:

Together with HE stakeholders develop

the required knowledge, critical

mass, and required instruments to

devise an agenda for the

implementation of a service-based

architecture for OpenLW

Starting from:

Functional approach towards ‘services’ Build on what is already there within and

outside the Netherlands Limit ourselves to the educational

domain Assumptions:

• 80% of the processes within HE institutions are functionally identical

• Differences are due to implementation decisions

Project activities

1. Define functional OpenLW reference architecture to identify common services

2. Validate with HE representatives

3. Gap-analysis re. existing frameworks

4. Pilot: service definition up to technical design

5. Dissemination activities

Activity 1: functional reference architecture

Trendanalysis

Class-extensions Sub-processen

Main processenDomain model

functional service-architecture (soa)

Service definitions

HE value chain in 2015

Matching student demand and institutional

supply

Manage OpenLW

Develop educ. offerings

Instantiate educ. offerings

Exploit educ. offerings

Maintain educ. offerings

Learning act.

Learning envir.

Learning act.

Learning envir.

Learning act.

Learning envir.

Learning act.

Learning envir.

Tree general process trends to be supported through OpenLW:

1. Five main processes get more and more interwoven

2. Educational and organizational/logistical processes get interwoven

3. Role-diversification of staff and student

Domain model

OnderwijsProv ider

Persoon Kwalificatie

+ niveau:

KwalificatieStructuur

+ domein:

Begeleiding

Assessment

ContentProv ider

Prov ider

TeVerwerv enKwalificatie

+ uitleverModus: + startDatum: + doorloopTijd: + studieLast: + kosten:

Verworv enKwalificatie

+ bewijsmateriaal: l i jst

AssessmentProv ider

BegeleidingsProv ider

Dienst

PersoonProv iderOv ereenkomst

+ diensten: l i jst+ producten: l i jst+ kwalificaties: l i jst+ start: datum+ einde: datum+ uitleverModus:

BronMateriaal

Product

+ metadata: l i jst

OnderwijsEenheid{abstract}

+ programmeringsRegel: regel+ ingangsEisen: l i jst+ uitleverOpties: l i jst

Aanbod{abstract}

+ type: (ontw./expl./beheer)

Faciliteit

Prov iderProv iderOv ereenkomst

+ diensten: l i jst+ producten: l i jst+ kwalificaties: l i jst+ start: datum+ einde: datum+ uitleverModus:

Enkelv oudigeOE

SamengesteldeOE

LeerActiv iteit LeerOmgev ing

*

*

streeftna

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

levert

*

*

*

1..*

*

* bezit *

*

reguleertsamenhang

*

1..*

*

1..*

*

1..*

*

OpenLW soa definition (v 0.1)

Based on the 5 main processes:

> 80 sub-processes (UML Use Cases)

(UML) Domain model + vocabulary (±100 classes)

> 70 service-definitions (UML Sequence Diagrams)

> 40 service provider definitions

5 architecture outlines (each main process)

uitwerking

soa architectuur

uitwerking

Manual service-implementation

klant service interface service provider

formele vraag

formeel antwoord

vraag

antwoord

Computer-supported service-implementation

klant service interface

vraag formele vraag

formeel antwoordantwoord

informatiesysteem

Web-based service-implementation

klant

formele vraag

formeel antwoordwerkstation

formele vraag

formeel antwoord

informatiesysteem

web-gebaseerdinformatiesysteem

formele vraagformeel antwoord

informatiesysteem

regelaar deelvraagdeelvraagdeelantwoorddeelantwoord

Some missing computer-supported services

‘Positioning’ and validating (previously) acquired competences

Study route/planning guidance Matching student demand and institutional supply –

sector-wide Student progress tracking and mapping in open

learning settings Peer assessment and tutoring support Group and logistics management by students Personal desktop tools integration with OpenLW ………………………..

Activity 2: Validation

By small expert group

Outcomes:• Common sub-processes can be defined ‘two levels deep’

• ‘Services’ and ‘functions’ at this level are almost identical

• Difficult to take a functional – and not implementational –

view

• Requires a major effort to draw up and communicate

• Selecting the ‘critical’ common services remains a subjective

and political process

Activity 3: Gap analysis OpenLW

Open source reference models: IMS Abstract Framework E-(learning) framework implementations SAKAI

Conclusions: Process approach OpenLW versus ‘aspect’

approach other frameworks OpenLW requires more detailed elaboration

Activity 4: in-depth soa definition

Domain: Assessment• Sub-domain: peer-assessment, self-assessment, and

360o feedback• Sub-processes:

– Design assessment– Item construction– Assessment construction– Conduct assessment – Process responses– Decide

Service definition ‘Response processing’

Approach• Describe overall assessment process

• Define six sub-processes through formal Use Cases

• Compile an assessment domain model

• Service definition for sub-process ‘process response’

Validation: • Model ‘process response’ in Enterprise Architect tool

• Generate Java-classes and expert to a Java development

environment

• ‘Round trip’ generate UML models based on adapted Java

code

Required efforts

Completed:• Domain model development for assessment (outside this

project): 200 days (1 fte)

• Functional design response processing webservice (1 out of

6 sub-processes): 20 days

Still to be done:• Improve functional design (10 days); technical design (30);

implement (30 days); unforeseen (10 days): total 100 days

• For complete assessment domain: 6 x 100 days = 3 fte

• Orchestration! ???? days

Activity 5: Dissemination

Activities:• Organise two national events on VLE/SIS integration

• Smaller discussion sessions with experts

• Website and wiki

Conclusions:• Project seemed to addressed relevant issues

• But: relevance and outcomes difficult to communicate

Overall conclusions

Top-down approach to defining a reference

architecture based on functional service

definitions is possible

The applied methodology and notation (UML)

increases transparency, but not validity.

Functional sub-processes can be described in

‘free format’ WSDL

Conclusions continued

But: statelessness is problematic/ often

orchestration will be required

Detailing to the level of technical web service

designs requires a considerable effort

Crucial question remains: which are the most

relevant common services?

Within Dutch HE expertise in this area is limited

State of the art in Dutch HE

Limited number of HE institutions is implementing soa/SOA

Approach, scope and ambition vary considerably

Knowledge dissemination is slowly starting up

Many small tools available, but relatively unknown, and no

common domain model

‘Orchestration’ issue seems the next problem to solve

Coming years: ‘mixed approach’

Possibly largely supplier-driven

Other sectors may provide convincing best practice

examples

Audiences and messages

ICT departments: enterprise architecture integration (EAI)

Decision makers: planning of your institutional application

architecture + shared services

Individual users (students & staff in research, education,

admin.): web goodies / PLE

Government & funding bodies: share best practices,

standards

Economic sectors & industry: life long learning agenda

HE ICT suppliers: market needs and potential

SURF-Werkplan 2007/2010 ‘Krachtig Doen’

Realise an information-infrastructure for:• End users:

• More transparant ICT facilities

• From supply to demand driven functionality

• Individual inst./ICT dep:

• Standardise the heterogeneous information-infrastructure

• Define a future oriented information-infrastructure

• HE consortia and HE sector:

• Define shared information-architecture

• ‘Shared services’ model

Activities 2007

Knowledge dissemination and training• Suppliers conference

• ‘Best practices’ conference

• Development strategies and tools

• Website, wiki, groupwork environment?

Community-building• HE soa strategy group

• Work groups

Needs assessment and business case development• For shared services

• What is available/can be adjusted

• Elaborate on OpenLW reference model??

• Explore Archimate modelling approach

……… continued

Proof of concept pilots• ‘Shared services’ pilot implementations (workflow)

• PLE compilations (indiv. webservices)

‘SOA Route Planner’ together with HE

institutions, partners and suppliers

SOA methods & tools selection/development

Technology scouting en standards

Within SURF: create synergy between platforms