Linking research & learning technologies through standards

The IMS Global quarterly meeting for late 2009 was hosted by Oracle at their Redwood City campus in California. During the meeting, Oracle and their partners gave a nice demonstration of systems integration using the emerging Learning Information Services specification.

About the LIS specification

The IMS Learning Information Services (LIS) specification supports

sharing of learner and course information between Student Information Systems and Learning Environments

It supersedes the previous IMS specification in this space (IMS Enterprise) that specified data formats for exchanging learning information between systems. LIS takes things a step further: as well as specifying data formats, it defines services for exchanging and synchronising student and course information between systems. This represents a new direction for IMS specifications: a shift toward a service oriented approach (soa) rather than a data oriented approach to system integration.

The LIS specification is large. It defines hundreds of operations in six services for managing updates to data about people, groups, memberships, courses, outcomes. It also has a bulk data exchange service that supports bulk provisioning of information between systems. Most of the services are defined using an IMS profile of the WS-I suite of specifications (WSDL, SOAP). There are also an LDAP binding for some of the services, and talk of REST-ful bindings in future versions.

An implementation of the specification is not required to support each and every service. Neither is an implementation required to support each and every operation. Rather, it is expected that communities will define profiles of the specification and implement those.

The demonstration

The demonstration itself involved an implementation of a higher education profile of the LIS specification. In the demonstration, Oracle used its Campus Solutions to manage information about students, course offerings, classes, grades etc in a mythical college. The product was essentially used as “single source of truth” for student and course information. Read the rest of this entry »

Registries of data—whether in research, learning, government, or other domains, and whether repositories, data warehouses, Learning Management Systems, or libraries—typically contain metadata not just on the content itself, but on who the data came from. The people responsible for the data are of interest to the people consuming the data; so registries need to record information about them as well. The primary kind of people (or groups of people) that are of interest are the authors of the data—or, where that concept is not as applicable, the contributors or compilers of the data. (Because institutions and organisations can also claim authorship, we prefer to refer to parties rather than people, following the ISO 2146 information model for registries.) But many parties can be responsible for data ending up in a registry, in the form it does; a registry can track a range of parties involved with data, in a range of roles: publisher, editor, validator, annotator, designer.

Because it is important to record information about parties, lots of registries record that information, in lots of ways. And to lots varying extents of detail. That means that there are a variety of information models at play for parties in registries. That doesn’t mean that all information models are rigorous and well thought out. Whacking in just the login name of an uploader, as YouTube does, is itself an information model for a party involved with the content—even if the amount of thought that went into it was not overwhelming.

But that does not mean YouTube’s information model is wrong. How much information you capture on parties for a registry depends on what use that information will be put to in the registry. The information model for parties is driven by the business requirements of the registry.

That of course is no great surprise, and working out what information is required is not particularly onerous: people may not put a lot of thought into it when they put registries together, but often enough they don’t need to. Still, especially if you are shopping for standards on representing parties, it is worth spending a couple of minutes working out what you need—and as importantly, what you don’t need.
Read the rest of this entry »