Interoperability and
Integration: keys to the LMS future
|
|
|
Scott Siddall |
|
siddall@denison.edu |
|
Denison University |
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? |
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 |
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 |
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) |
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! |
Interoperability is
based on standards
|
|
|
Annual Alt-i-Lab conference is
a focal point |
|
http://www.imsglobal.org/altilab/ |
IMS Global Learning
Consortium
IMS Global Learning
Consortium
Common Cartridge
|
|
|
|
A new initiative for
interoperability |
|
Textbook publishers develop one
textbook cartridge for all compliant LMS |
|
Blackboard, WebCT, Angel, Sakai |
Common Cartridge
|
|
|
Based on QTI (from IMS) and
SCORM (from ADL/DoD) |
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 |
Web services
|
|
|
|
Modular pieces of code |
|
Reusable |
|
Contain a software contract |
|
An explicit application
programming interface, API |
|
Platform agnostic (PHP, Java,
etc) |
Integrating the services
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?) |
One framework: Sakai
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) |
Slide 18
Targets of integration
|
|
|
Authentication based on the
“eduperson”
SSO may even appear to be integration |
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….. |
Slide 21
Slide 22
Slide 23
Tight vs loose coupling
|
|
|
Differing software design
approaches |
|
Hardwired code or modular
services on a global bus? |
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 |
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 |
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 |
Global initiatives
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 |
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 |
So?
|
|
|
What is important to us, and
how will we achieve it? |