2006-02-21 Agenda and Notes

Weekly Meeting Agenda for 02-21-2006

Agenda

phase 1 goals
- what are the top 1-2 requirements to fulfill by Fall '06?
update on design process
update on initial Course Management API tasks
- summary of back-and-forth with framework group
- schedule time for developers to flush out more detailed task plan
other opinions on charter/goals/problem statement?

Notes

A.Feasible deliverable for fall 06 – expectations for Stanford, UCB, minimal UI changes.

SU –
1. Cross-listing,
2. upload from Excel, not related to CM though
3. Local Admin - hardest thing to do
a,. Data isn't in Sakai b. it isn't persisted c. Authz new level needs to be added
Grad tools may offer temp solution to #3

UCB
Still looking at requirements. Show real student IDs. UCB may not even run new tag in the fall. This is essentially a retreat from UCB's previous position that required tangible improvements rooted directly in the CM work.

Still, it seems reasonable to show something from SU POV. Cross-listing is easiest to implement from SU's above list. But cross-listing needs to be defined. What is acceptable as a first step? Visible in section aware tools? Do you show both courses in a tool's filter? Rosters from two classes in one site at minimum for SU. But this can be done now. What will be different? One option is to combine multiple rosters and populate sections – easiest to do, infrastructure is already there, but really more of an implementation detail. What needs to change in the UI? *** Marc and Daphne will work on a definition for what it means to have cross-listed courses in Sakai for the fall.

B. Vocabulary, CM definitions – need to standardize. Documenting FtoF discussion between Ray and Mark N could be a good first step. **** Duffy will take a stab at wrting some uses cases to help provide underpinnings of the terminology and definitions. ****Josh and Ray will also start devising use cases (these are lower system level uses cases, what data do the applications need). *****Marc and Daphne will meet today to go over standard terminology, then ****Marc will meet with Duffy tomorrow to refine.

****Duffy will put initial set of definitions into Confluence to start work on reaching an agreement on common terminology. These need to be fleshed out and supported by actual use cases – definitions do not exist in a vacuum. *****Everyone try to review the existing definitions within 48 hours. All agreed that "Use Cases" will be the term used to describe both systemic and end user requirements. ****Daphne and Marc will produce UML-ish diagrams from end user perspective today.

To sum up, everyone will need to review the draft CM terminology in the next couple of days. At the same time, there will be various efforts underway to produce use cases to test and refine those definitiions. Marc and Duffy will also meet before the 48 hours are up to start reviewing the draft CM terminology.

C. Marc and Daphne travels, further use case gathering
Both are going to UofA to meet with Desire to Learn support folks
Berkeley the following week
May also go to Portland State mid-Marc

D. Communication with framework group.

Nothing to report that isn't already public. Moving forward with CM API clean up, new work based on use cases is what can be actively worked on right now.

****Duffy will pursue appropriate level of SVN committer access for reps from each of the schools in the WG. The message should underscore the fact that integration testing will happen all along the way to ensure that nothing breaks.

E. CM API moving forward redux.

API Extends data persistence when it doesn't need to. This should be an implementation detail.
Some institutions participating on the Integration DG may be ready to move beyond thought experiments into testing the implementation once it is ready.

F. Problem statement – ****Need to combine Duffy's piece with some concrete details of what is to be improved upon. Marc and Duffy will meet to work this out. In any case, Duffy's opening paragraph should appear on the Confluence intro page in any case.