- From: Haag, Jason <jason.haag.ctr@adlnet.gov>
- Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 09:14:07 -0500
- To: Crispin Weston <crispin.weston@saltis.org>
- Cc: Frank Polster <polsterf@gmail.com>, "public-xdmdl@w3.org" <public-xdmdl@w3.org>
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