Re: First attempt at modelling

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 13:01:25 UTC