OpenLW reference architecture project author: Eric Kluijfhout, [email protected]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.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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
‘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