Re: First attempt at modelling

Which trial version? There are several options. They don't all have
the same amount of features.
-------------------------------------------------------
Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative
+1.850.266.7100(office)
+1.850.471.1300 (mobile)
jhaag75 (skype)
http://motifproject.org (MoTIF Project)
http://ml.adlnet.gov (Web)
http://twitter.com/mobilejson (Twitter)
http://linkedin.com/in/jasonhaag (LinkedIn)


On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, Crispin Weston
<crispin.weston@saltis.org> wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
> sorry - I haven't got the community license yet. I will let you know as soon
> as I have some more info. As you can see, I just used the trial version.
>
> best, Crispin.
>
> Sent from my HTC
>
> ----- Reply message -----
> From: "Haag, Jason" <jason.haag.ctr@adlnet.gov>
> To: "Crispin Weston" <crispin.weston@saltis.org>
> Cc: "Frank Polster" <polsterf@gmail.com>, "public-xdmdl@w3.org"
> <public-xdmdl@w3.org>
> Subject: First attempt at modelling
> Date: Wed, May 6, 2015 2:00 PM
>
> Which  version of visual paradigm should I install for the community
> license?
>
> http://www.visual-paradigm.com/shop/vp.jsp
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative
> +1.850.266.7100(office)
> +1.850.471.1300 (mobile)
> jhaag75 (skype)
> http://motifproject.org (MoTIF Project)
> http://ml.adlnet.gov (Web)
> http://twitter.com/mobilejson (Twitter)
> http://linkedin.com/in/jasonhaag (LinkedIn)
>
>
> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Crispin Weston
> <crispin.weston@saltis.org> wrote:
>> Many thanks Frank. Thank you too, Jason. So long as we are interacting
>> with
>> the use-cases, then I also think this approach could be useful - and I
>> agree
>> with Jason that going dormant is dangerous - you never know whether you
>> will
>> wake up again.
>>
>> I don't want to restrict the modelling to UML. If anyone else has
>> suggestions for how these things can be modelled (OWL etc) so much the
>> better. By the time I can show you the results of my tool development, we
>> should have worked up a grid: use-cases x modelling approaches.
>>
>> I have not yet approached Simon Grant or Valerie Withers, mainly because I
>> think it might be useful to have the half page on "what we are doing"
>> before
>> issuing any more invitations. But I will go ahead and ask for the
>> community
>> license for Visual Paradigm - it covers quite a few modelling paradigms,
>> though not all, I am sure.
>>
>> Best,
>> Crispin.
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5 May 2015, Frank Polster <polsterf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Crispin,
>> It does!
>> Modeling the other use cases has merit and continuing at the same time to
>> catch up with others in this area eg Valerie, Robby, Simon Grant, Paul JK
>> etc is a way for us also to examine alternate. Use cases.
>> I am on board.
>> Thanks Frank
>>
>> Sent from Outlook
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, May 5, 2015 at 6:18 AM -0700, "Crispin Weston"
>> <crispin.weston@saltis.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Frank,
>>
>> Thanks very much for this document. I understand that I have caused some
>> confusion with regards to the direction and objectives of the group!
>>
>> As you have reviewed the objectives of the group, let me review what we
>> have
>> done so far.
>>
>> Call-01 & Call-02: Crispin presented his straw-man. Everyone listened very
>> patiently but the general reaction was that this was rather too detailed,
>> and XML formatting too unfriendly, for people to engage in useful
>> discussions. So it was agreed that Crispin would develop a tool which
>> would
>> enable people to play around with the straw-man specification and see
>> whether it could be useful.
>>
>> Call-03. A progress review discussion.
>>
>> Call-04 & Call-05: Jono presented the ADL's work on a SCORM profile for
>> xAPI. This was very well received.
>>
>> Call-06: a further progress review discussion. It was agreed to invite
>> further presentations on current work on competency definitions, and to
>> have
>> a further discussion in Call-07 trying to encapsulate the purpose of the
>> group in an easily-digested half page.
>>
>> My reaction to the prospect of hearing more use-cases, interesting though
>> they are, is that there is a danger of the group slipping into spectator
>> mode. I think the use-cases are interesting so long as we can use them as
>> material for modelling activity. But my tool is not going to be available
>> for another couple of months, at best.
>>
>> There are two reasons for my new interest in UML. My *old* interest in UML
>> (as illustrated by Learning Activity Model) was to define conceptual
>> taxonomies, rather than more concrete, technical architectures.
>>
>> 1. First, I think we need to demonstrate that whatever we are proposing
>> will
>> not duplicate what is already available. So *part* of the requirement is
>> precisely to show (as I think you suggest, Frank) that UML is not
>> sufficient. We might need to do a similar elimination exercise on e.g.
>> XSD.
>>
>> 2. My first release of the tool (and the documents I have written so far)
>> are focused on the high level data modelling. But I think we are moving
>> towards a recognition that this is only part of the solution. We also need
>> to model topologies and/or workflows. I thought a look at UML might be
>> particularly interesting from this point of view, to help clarify what we
>> meant by these terms. This is an aspect of the requirement which I have
>> not
>> yet produced any very concrete proposals.
>>
>> 3. Possibly as a way in which the group more widely could engage with the
>> use cases that we are proposing to explore, while I try and make progress
>> with the tool. Even if UML might not be sufficient for our purposes, it
>> might help clarify some of the differences between different use cases:
>> traditional SCORM, xAPI, xAPI-SCORM, xAPI-CMI5, a competency model, what
>> Aswini proposes with JSON metadata provided by interrogating a service...
>>
>> If it is just a matter of keeping people busy while I make progress on the
>> tool, you might say that you would prefer to dig holes and fill them in
>> again. It may be that we should just go dormant and reconvene when I have
>> a
>> tool to give you to play around with - and that that is the point at which
>> we should invite people to present more use cases, as we will then be able
>> to interact with those use cases by modelling them.
>>
>> My answers to your questions, Frank, are that I did think it might be
>> useful
>> to model different use cases (in particular the variations - multi-player
>> etc) at the topological and workflow levels, though not at the data model
>> level. And that I thought this would be useful, not for the purpose of
>> creating specifications, but for the purpose of exploring what it takes to
>> model these things, establish in what respects a generic tool like UML
>> could
>> be streamlined when replicated at a higher level, and to establish the key
>> ways that the different use cases differ.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>>
>>
>>
>> Crispin Weston
>>
>> On 4 May 2015, Frank Polster <polsterf@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Crispin,
>>
>> Attached is a document that is a bit of a "review of the bidding" on my
>> part
>> to ascertain where we currently are in the XDMDL project. If my general
>> understanding is correct I have made  suggestions about going forward. If
>> not ok.
>>
>> I think to some extent we have moved further along with your five
>> objectives
>> of which we deferred three. I think we are talking about bridging to the
>> the
>> deferred three at this point with the development of a prototype tool and
>> therefore the use case and UML diagrams are the next step.
>>
>> Thanks Frank
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 4, 2015 at 3:07 AM, Crispin Weston <crispin.weston@saltis.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Frank Polster
>> Cell 757-816-6230
>> Google Voice -757-741-7002
>> polsterf@gmail.com
>> frank@g3.com
>

Received on Wednesday, 6 May 2015 14:15:18 UTC