Re: First attempt at modelling

Hi Aswini,

Many thanks for the thoughts - and I am very sorry to see that I have not enrolled you on to the wiki - I will send you login details, after which you should be able to post to the wiki.

I am sure that my very high level, first attempt at a SCORM model, could be improved, with different diagrams for each actor, and it would be great if you and others could contribute ideas using the Visual Paradigm tool.
I will send you login details - and thanks again.

Crispin


On 3 May 2015, Aswini Sridhar <ashumeow@live.com> wrote:
> 
> After glancing, reading and visualizing [1], here are the answers to that wiki. (I’m unable to post answers though.)
> 1. Do you think that these diagrams correctly capture the top-level processes involved in SCORM? If not, can you improve on them?
> There is yes as well as no.
> In terms of yes:- These diagrams correctly capture the top-level processes involved in SCORM.
> In terms of no:- We can also improve it. It is great to put one common diagram like in Figure 1 [1]. Along with Figure 1, we can add separate figures for every actor.
> And why?
> In that figure 1, there are 4 actors namely publisher, administrator, instructor and learner. Every actor will be given different functions.
> The least one and easy one is the publisher who creates the package.
> Common functionalities for administrator, instructor and learner are --- login, logout.
> Users and instructors can’t access certain things, because administrator might have revoked certain access points. But, it has been already illustrated in the diagram, but it appears quite complex.
> How about Figure 1 as common and separate figures for every actor? This will make it more easier for us to add more functionalities and we can make it more friendly model and easier/simple to understand.
> 
> 2. Can you produce similar diagrams for other use cases: xAPI, multi-player, competency references etc.
> Yes, sure. Why not?
> 
> 3. Is this a useful approach to understanding how to model these different processes?
> For now, it appears quite useful.
> It would be nice to hear suggestions from others.
> 
> 
> 
> [1] <http://wiki.saltis.org/display/XDMDL/SCORM>
> 
> Coming back to your other questions,
> a) I could apply for a Community license for the Visual Paradigm software, which is what I used to create the diagrams.
> 
> Yes, Apply for it. I found that the community license is free in VP S/W official page.
> 
> b) we could devote a call to discussing how to create these diagrams.
> 
> Yes, that would have be great. We can dedicate some time for it through a call that would help everybody in our group to participate in modelling the diagrams.
> 
> c) everyone on the group could get a homework to model one use case using the VP tool.
> 
> Sounds fun! =D
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Aswini. S
> 
> From: Crispin Weston <crispin.weston@saltis.org>
> Sent: ‎Monday‎, ‎04‎ ‎May‎ ‎2015 ‎00‎:‎28
> To: <public-xdmdl@w3.org>
> 
> Dear All,
> 
> I have tried my hand at producing a couple of UML models, which I have posted to the wiki at http://wiki.saltis.org/display/XDMDL/SCORM. This effort was stimulated by Aswini's question about having a system where one might interrogate a service in order to retrieve appropriate JSON metadata. My thought being that these sorts of use case need to be explored in some sort of commonly understood modelling environment. In this way, we might get a better understanding of what exactly a machine-readable modelling environment would look like that allowed different interoperability scenarios to be implemented easily.
> 
> Do have a look and let me know if you think this might be a useful avenue to pursue. If you think it is, then:
> 
> a) I could apply for a Community license for the Visual Paradigm software, which is what I used to create the diagrams.
> 
> b) we could devote a call to discussing how to create these diagrams.
> 
> c) everyone on the group could get a homework to model one use case using the VP tool.
> 
> Let me know what you think! And if you think that my SCORM diagrams could be improved on (or supplemented with lower-level diagrams), do download your own evaluation copy of VP, download the editable file from the wiki, and amend as you wish.
> In the meantime, I propose that next week's call should focus on producing a better and shorter definition of the group's purpose.
> 
> Crispin