Sections

1 Purposes
2 Information
3 Architectures
4 Mapping
5 Transforming
6 Transferring
7 Feedback
Workshop Presentations

Our links

PDP survey
LIP Baseline Pack
UK Dev LIP

External Links

DPA 1998
IMS LIP

7 Feedback from attempted interoperation

As the proof of the pudding is in the eating, the proof of making systems interoperable is in whether the information transferred is actually useful in practice, in the systems or parts of the system where it did not originate. Though one might hope that the information transferred will always be wholly sufficient for the purposes of the different parts of the system, this is unlikely to be the case, particularly where the information could be called "soft". To ensure the long-term effectiveness of interoperation, it would seem sensible firstly to have reporting procedures in place which would alert the system managers to the appearance of information that does not fit in context, and secondly to have a worked-out approach to diagnosing what may have gone wrong, and how to put it right.

Here are some questions which could be followed through in cases where an incompatibility was found. The questions step back through the various stages and issues identified earlier in this site.

Is the transfer working correctly?

For example, are data being lost in transit? Is the same data set being transferred more than once? This level should be able to be tested using test data that do not need to be meaningful. Dealing with these issues belongs entirely to technical staff.

Are the user interfaces used in accordance with their design?

Users (one might say, particularly students) are only human, and so are interface designers. There are many cases of interactive systems being used in a different way from the one designed. So it is worth checking that at the point where the mismatching information was created, it was done so in accordance with the expectations of those who design and manage the PDP or related programmes. If the use differs from the design, it suggests the need either for greater clarity in the interface design, to ensure that users use it in the way designed for, or more extensive training of the users, so that they can understand how they should be using it, or perhaps a redesign of the system so that the users' natural responses are better accommodated by the system. This, then, may be a matter for academic, or business, practice.

Has the information been mapped and transformed properly?

As mentioned in previous sections, there is plenty of scope in the mapping and transformation to interpret information differently. One can firstly check that mappings are reasonable at each end; secondly, that the same choices have been made at each end for information which is to be used in similar ways. But it may turn out that some changes are needed to the specifications in order to help clarity of mapping, and mutual recognition. In this case, the least difficult thing to change would be the vocabularies. Whether it is the vocabularies, or the information model itself, this is the time to discuss it with the teams looking after both the UK Developmental LIP and UK LeaP.

Are there adequate shared models of practice?

This is a deeper and more taxing question. But in cases where problems are not resolved by reference to the above questions, it may be worth considering whether there are differences in the ways in which the whole process is being thought of, by the people associated with the different parts of the system. It may be, for example, that the technical system was not designed with clear enough input from practitioners. Or it may be that the practitioners themselves have not thought through the nature of the processes with regard to information. This is perhaps the most challenging problem to overcome. The various parties will have to engage in dialogue based on developing mutual recognition of each other's areas. The wisdom of the haiku is intended to be that a shared representation - essential for interoperation - comes through mutual recognition.

If you are a members of one of the JISC MLEs for Lifelong Learning projects, we are here to support you. For general and non-technical matters, please contact the Centre for Recording Achievement. For technical questions you may contact Simon Grant directly.

Please also send suggestions for additions or improvements to this page or site to Simon Grant.

Revised 2004-01-26 13:01:39