LEAP systems and system owners

Part of LEAP 2.0

See also the pages relating to Portfolio systems generally.

Relationships of related systems: Take 1
Here's a draft sketch of a "reference model", encompassing both the EP4LLL work and also some of our previous discussions:



The interactions in RED are those which I feel are within the primary scope of LEAP 2.0.

While the same models may be usable in many of these operations, the critical transaction under consideration is that between two systems which fall under the category of “portfolio management system”. Broadly, we are discussing systems that have the following properties:


 * They provide a user profile, with basic information such as name and graphical avatar.
 * They must either contain, or link to, a collection of resources associated with a user (files, journal entries)
 * They may provide an extended profile capability focussed on personal development characteristics, including a user’s competencies and goals
 * They may describe or link to assessment outcomes (achievements) for a user
 * They may support some notion of disclosure restrictions against individual resources and possibly individual characteristics
 * They may be operated by institutions, or as general public web services

Relationships of related systems: Take 2
This is the sketch redone based on the work of both EP4LLL and PLE. Note the absence of a "portfolio system" in the institution in this sketch. The scope of EP interoperability in this model is VERY different:



Here, we are concerned with:


 * Moving achievement descriptions around various systems
 * Exposing activities from LMS/LAMS for the PLE
 * Exposing achievements from SRS/MIS for the PLE
 * Interactions between PLE and institutional services (IAG, PDP) relating to the development/augmentation of portfolio items
 * Application to HE using portfolio information as a source

I think in practice the PLE/S could live in the institution in some cases and be characterized as an EPMS, at least in the current phase of development.

However this sketch does suggest that disaggregation of any EP definition into individual reusable 'speclets' is a very real requirement, not a 'nice ideal'.

Actual portfolio systems and their use of LEAP 2.0 concepts and constructs
General information is given in the Portfolio systems pages. On top of that, please feel free to set up a page for any portfolio system specifically dealing with LEAP 2.0 concepts and constructs. If you do that, please list the page here.

Discussion
Please follow up with discussion under the discussion tab, rather than here. I have moved discussion to there.