1	Interoperability and Integration: keys to the LMS future Scott Siddall siddall@denison.edu Denison University
2	Roadmap Painting a canvas; you’re welcome to help Goals Greater awareness Identify priorities and processes Set stage for Eric and Alex What is important to us, and how will we achieve it?
3	Interoperability ≠ integration Interoperability is here today (well, here and there) Service oriented and successful integration across systems is elusive We care but others may not
4	Interoperability Separate systems exchanging data based on standards Connects best of breed, suites, standalone apps, legacy apps, code that exports/imports Largely a technical issue Is being realized today in some systems
5	Integration Technical viewpoint here, but could be social, policy, pedagogical, etc Subsystems providing defined services within a larger system An effective ecosystem of linked systems Integration formalizes many complex interdependencies Is hard to achieve Can be hard to deconstruct (or upgrade, or change)
6	Motivation to interoperate? Stakeholders in the higher ed institutions (better services) Shareholders in the commercial sector (control) For example, why would Sakai and LAMS interoperate? Would D2L interoperate with Blackboard? There are legal barriers to interoperating!
7	Interoperability is based on standards Annual Alt-i-Lab conference is a focal point http://www.imsglobal.org/altilab/
8	IMS Global Learning Consortium http://www.imslobal.org/
9	IMS Global Learning Consortium
10	Common Cartridge A new initiative for interoperability Textbook publishers develop one textbook cartridge for all compliant LMS Blackboard, WebCT, Angel, Sakai
11	Common Cartridge Based on QTI (from IMS) and SCORM (from ADL/DoD)
12	What’s next? Integration based on a service oriented architecture (SOA) and web services Create an integrated e-learning framework IMS/GLC is moving toward the SOA strategy
13	Web services Modular pieces of code Reusable Contain a software contract An explicit application programming interface, API Platform agnostic (PHP, Java, etc)
14	Integrating the services
15	LMS? Do we manage learning? Root of “education” is educe, to draw out We support motivated learners We give structure to learning opportunities Learning management becomes e-learning frameworks (We’ve been insinuating technology into learning – should we be insinuating learning into popular technology as well?)
16	One framework: Sakai http://sakaiproject.org
17	Sakai A collaboration and learning environment or e-learning framework Standards called OSIDs, open service interface definitions Software contracts OSIDs are a type of API only more specific....they connect more complex, high level applications with simpler, underlying services Frameworks based on open standards encourage tool development (= choices)
18
19	Targets of integration Authentication based on the “eduperson” SSO may even appear to be integration
20	Targets of integration Two-way SIS data exchanges (policies) One-way, two-way, batch, real-time Access to digital library holdings (licensing) Access to institutional and personal repositories (IP and DRM) Communications including P2P (copyright) File systems (permissions) E-portfolios and more…..
21
22
23
24	Tight vs loose coupling Differing software design approaches Hardwired code or modular services on a global bus?
25	Loosely coupled software Loose means dependencies are centralized dependencies = risk; manage them at one place Loose is usually more easily maintained Insertion of local features can be easier in loosely coupled systems
26	Hardwired software Usually harder to maintain, change Lock-in of code or data is more likely Forking is a frequent consequence Distribution variants that are hard to support Or worse: recoupling software development and support to produce another proprietary system
27	IBM’s recent grant of systems and service to Rice University YAELF SOA approach involving Connexions, DSpace, Sakai, etc “Genetic recombination” and natural selection in our community will ensure fitness
28	Global initiatives
29	OK, but what’s next? These abstractions may be crucial as we consider new learning and collaboration frameworks that aren’t based on courses, seat time or credits as measures of learning
30	Examples Quiz & test export as interoperability Drag & drop (WebDAV) as integration with the desktop Sakaibrary to integrate library content Open Source Portfolio integrated into Sakai
31	So? What is important to us, and how will we achieve it?