Slide 1 - CANHEIT
description
Transcript of Slide 1 - CANHEIT
1
A Community Source Student Services System
Richard Spencer
Leo Fernig
CANHEIT, HalifaxJune 12, 2006
2
Mellon funded planning study Goals
– level of interest in an open source SSS?– need for an open source SSS?– any existing applications to use as a base?
Participants– University of Indiana, Georgetown University, San
Joaquin Delta College, UBC, consultants and others Consultation
– meetings at JA-SIG and Sakai conferences– SOA workshop in Vancouver– focus groups at AACRAO– consultation with vendors
3
3 developments that enable a CS SSS open and community source software development service oriented architecture (SOA) Web services
The SSS vision focus on the end user support all types of learning build a modular system
– integrate modules with existing systems
use workflow and rules engines– cross departmental and system boundaries
– implement “your practices”, not “best practices”
4
Open and CommunitySource
5
The evolution of Open Source
CoreInfrastructure
Tools andcomponents
Enterprisesolutions
Linux (1991)
1990
Apache (1995)
1995 2000 2005
PostgreSQL (1999)
Eclipse (2004)
uPortal (2001)
Sakai(2004)
Kuali(2004)
Moodle(2001)
jBoss (1999)
SSS (2006) ???
6
Open vs. community source
Open source Open membership
Large developer community
Individuals may decide priorities & projects
Local development can lead to different versions
Source code is open for review and change
Corporate contributions welcome
Community source Membership in a community
Smaller development community
Priorities established by community
Locally developed components are compatible
Source code may be included in commercial products
Institutional and corporate contributions welcome
7
Community source objectives Productivity
– more developers working on project Reliability
– more eyes looking for bugs Innovation
– institutions are free to innovate and share Direction
– partners can have input into Community projects Evolution
– community can ensure sustained development Partnerships
– include commercial partners
8
A student services system
9
SOA goals break business processes down into:
– process or control logic (orchestration service layer)– business logic (business service layer)– infrastructure functions (application service layer)
use standard data models and XML schemas build agnostic, reusable “services” to provide the
business logic and application functions use rules engines for the internal logic use workflow for the process logic loosely couple components agility - make process change easier!
10
Community source SSS possibilities True service analysis and orientation
Common entity models, data standards and XML schemas
Web services for loose coupling
Combining modules developed at different schools
Combining open source and commercial components
Using commercial service providers to implement and support systems and system components
11
Imagining a next generationstudent services system
12
The Expedia model Where do you want to go When do you want to go there You can choose:
– the airline– the class
You can sort the results by– price– departure or arrival time
if you like one of the choices.....– provide your name and payment information
13
How we often deal with applicants Give me your personal information first
– including your name, gender, date of birth... Here is a list of every program we offer Choose no more than two Pay us We will let you know if we can admit you .....but give us a few weeks to figure this out If yes, we will give you a registration time Then you can search for the courses you need If no,
– we keep your money anyway
14
Letting studentsadmit themselves
15
Self evaluation and admission If there are specific admission requirements:
– e.g.: required courses, grades or gpas
Students choose a program & enter their own courses and grades
A rules engine determines if they are admissible– they get a full explanation of:
what credentials were used, what was missing how the admission gpa was calculated why they did or didn’t qualify for admission
They can admit themselves..– and print their admission letter in real time
16
Reflecting on self-admission Students:
– do the grade submission work– get an immediate answer– can see the rules and how they have been applied
The process allows:– a student to try multiple “what if” scenarios– counselors to advise students on program requirements
The rules engine could allow the student to:– select a program, and see what is required to enter it– enter what they have, and see what they are eligible for
Staff can concentrate on value added work
The process is scalable!
17
Applicantlogin
Identityservice
Evaluate applic’t/offer choices
Program/aidservices
Informationcollection
Prior inst.services
Applicantprofile
Choice not availableRegistration
serviceOutcome
Choice available
18
What we have learned
19
The vision is right Focus on end users Support all kinds of learning Modular, standards based, loose coupled SOA, web services, and enterprise services Workflow, rules engines (decision services) Make it easy to redesign business processes Extend functionality into new areas Community source development Scalable, rule based, self-service processes
20
The need is there add functionality to existing systems
– ERPs can’t do everything– re-use some existing functionality
replace old technology– don’t want to install a monolithic ERP system
future path for in-house systems– one institution can no longer develop a complete
student system
get off the ERP upgrade path– improvements don’t always reflect cost and effort
Delaware:•housing•dining•course approval•judicial referral•course & faculty evaluation•advising notesIndiana•course trading
21
The next steps International participation in planning
Entity models, XML schemas
Service oriented analysis of key processes– some process redesign
Web services standards
Reference infrastructure
Identify partners who will build modules
Form a partnership
Build the first modules
22
...and now to cover Leo’s part
23
Development strategy for a student system
• It is too big to be built as a single monolithic system• It has to be built as a set of independent components• These components are collections of services• The services are loosely coupled using Web services
• It has to be built with open technologies• On an open source infrastructure • On open standards• With open source tools
24
25
Business services• Agnostic• Composable
Composed services• Aggregations • Orchestrations
A more detailed decomposition of services
Infrastructure services• Enterprise wide• Student System specific
26
Services are built on the same model
27
Anatomy of a service
A service is composed of:1. A container
1. Lifecycle management2. Security3. Caching/logging services
2. An interface defined in WSDL1. Data structures2. Method signatures
3. Implementation code1. Java classes
28
Anatomy of a service bus
A service bus is composed of:
1. A canonical XML2. Lightweight service containers3. A messaging system backbone
29
A simple example: Processing an SAT score
An SAT score arrives via ftp:
1. It is converted to standard (canonical) XML2. Both messages are logged3. The SAT is evaluated4. The SAT and the evaluation are added to the
applicant’s file
In reality these services would deal with any tests: GRE,TOEFL, LSAT
30
A simple example: Message flow
36
Are the technologies available?
1. Core infrastructure
2. Web service standards
3. Web service technologies
4. Application components
37
Core infrastructure
Linux (1991)
1990
Apache (1995)
1995 2000 2005
PostgreSQL (1999)
Eclipse (2004)
uPortal (2001)
Sakai(2004)
CoreInfrastructure
Tools andcomponents
Enterprisesolutions
Kuali(2004)
Moodle(2001)
jBoss (1999)
38
Web service standards1. W3C standards:
1. XML schema2. WSDL3. SOAP
2. Other web service standards (mainly OASIS):1. WS-transaction2. WS-coordination3. WS-security4. BPEL (Business Process Execution Language)
3. Web Service Interoperability Group1. Basic Profile2. Basic Security Profile
39
Web service tools
1. Tools for authoring XML schemas2. Tools for authoring WSDL’s 3. Web service run-time containers
For example:1. WST Eclipse tools for authoring XML schemas2. Axis (Apache) graphical tools for authoring
WSDL’s3. Web service run-time containers
40
ConclusionThree prerequisites for a student system
1. An entity model1. A high level entity model2. A set of XML schemas (a canonical xml)
2. A service model1. A high level service decomposition model2. A common set of WSDL’s
3. Technology infrastructure1. Core infrastructure2. Web services standards3. Web service tools and technologies4. Application components