Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
Open lw reference architecture project
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Open lw reference architecture project

381
views

Published on

Project definition; Project set-up; Activities & outcomes; Project conclusions & HE state of the art; SURF activities 2007 …

Project definition; Project set-up; Activities & outcomes; Project conclusions & HE state of the art; SURF activities 2007

Published in: Education

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
381
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Ervan uitgaande dat de toekomst in ieder geval gedeeltelijk maakbaar is, waar dienen we dan rekening mee te houden? Welke keuzes en welke acties zijn relevant? Instellingservaringen met de ELO tot nu toe: hoe wordt het gebruikt; wat kost het; wat voegt het toe; zijn de oorspronkelijke verwachtingen uitgekomen? Wat kunnen we hiervan leren voor de toekomst? 2. Welke nieuwe mogelijkheden zijn ondertussen beschikbaar gekomen: de technologische ontwikkelingen. En hoe moeten we die op hun waarde schatten? 3. En: is het over 5 jaar nog ‘business as usual’ of opereren we dan in een andere context? En wat betekent dat voor de benodigde ELO? Een aantal instellingen is concreet bezig zich op een nieuwe ELO te orienteren, terwijl andere niet uitlsuiten op termijn over te stappen. ELO innovaties zullen voorlopig doorgaan: wachten op de ‘definitieve ELO’ heeft geen zin.
  • Differences between AND within institutions re. Use and ambitions Differences in explicit linking to a pedagogical approach (maturity level) Gap between central VLE policy and decentral implementation Need for instruments to discuss, plan and monitor VLE use and innovation Real need to share knowledge and experiences within NL VLE architecture is part of the institutional application architecture: overall need for integration!
  • Internationally: SAKAI, ELF, IMS-AF Also commercial suppliers (Bb) Within NL various reports this year: Informatie-architectuur in het hoger onderwijs (20-80 regel) De Tocht: integratie ELO en SIS Digitale Leer en Werkomgeving Next Generation Open source toepassen in modulaire ELO’s …………………… The ‘ small soa’ approach
  • Het begrip ‘Architectuur’ is hierin centraal.
  • Onder invloed van open programmering, vraagsturing en veranderende student
  • Front office en back office model
  • Vinden van relevante webservices d.m.v. UDDI ((Universal Description, Discovery, and Intergration): (Universal Description, Discovery, and Intergration)
  • Problemen oplossen voor gebruikers: Verschillende systemen met verschillende look en feel; zelf gegevens uit verschillende systemen vissen Veel duplicatie van functies in applicaties (bijv. mail) en op het web vaak betere tools dan aangeboden door de instelling Problemen oplossen voor instellingen: Beheer van interfaces tussen ‘vertikale’ systemen is duur, kost veel tijd, en maakt vervanging van systemen uiterst complex: ICT applicatie-architectuur hindert innovatie! Je wil een helder beslissingsmodel hebben bij keuze/vervanging van applicaties, gebaseerd op je informatiebehoeften Consortia en sector als geheel: Uitwisselen van gegevens Outsourcen van basisfunctionaliteit – ‘stekkers’ nodig naar eigen architectuur Over de grenzen van domeinen: Processen tussen domeinen raken steeds meer verweven Roldifferentiatie
  • Vertaling in activiteiten voor 2007 op basis van: rondje langs lopende SURF projecten Behoeftenonderzoek voor SURFnet Projectleiderschap ELO Groei- en Verandermanagement (referentie-architectuur) – DU, E-merge, Apollo, SURF. 2 x organisatie conferentie De ELO Voorbij Diensten-ontwikkeling op basis van behoeften-inventarisatie en SIG.
  • Proof of concept pilots: Roeland vertelt daar meer over Methodieken & tools: Business Process Modelling Architectuurplanning Architectuurmodellering Service definitie
  • Transcript

    • 1. 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.  
    • 2. OpenLW reference architecture project 2004-2006 Eric Kluijfhout
    • 3. Outline
      • Project definition
      • Project set-up
      • Activities & outcomes
      • Project conclusions & HE state of the art
      • SURF activities 2007
    • 4. Problem 2004 requirements? relevance? new needs? VLE of the future? Trends en new mandate HE Technology trends Institutional VLE experiences
    • 5. 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
    • 6. Outcomes project definition: mid 2005 Desk study Architecture analysis Stakeholder consultation VLE of the future? Trends en new mandate HE Technology trends Institutional VLE experiences
    • 7. 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
    • 8. 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?
    • 9. 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
    • 10. 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?”
    • 11. 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
    • 12. 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
    • 13. Project activities
      • Define functional OpenLW reference architecture to identify common services
      • Validate with HE representatives
      • Gap-analysis re. existing frameworks
      • Pilot: service definition up to technical design
      • Dissemination activities
    • 14. Activity 1: functional reference architecture Trendanalysis Class-extensions Sub-processen Main processen Domain model functional service-architecture (soa) Service definitions
    • 15. HE value chain in 2015 Matching student demand and institutional supply Manage OpenLW
      • Tree general process trends to be supported through OpenLW:
      • Five main processes get more and more interwoven
      • Educational and organizational/logistical processes get interwoven
      • Role-diversification of staff and student
      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.
    • 16. Domain model
    • 17. 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)
    • 18. Manual service-implementation
    • 19. Computer-supported service-implementation
    • 20. Web-based service-implementation
    • 21. 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
      • ……………………… ..
    • 22. 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
    • 23. 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
    • 24. 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
    • 25. 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
    • 26. 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
    • 27. 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
    • 28. 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
    • 29. 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
    • 30. 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
    • 31. 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
    • 32. 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
    • 33. 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
    • 34. ……… 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