Comments on: Doubts about OKI and Sakai http://mfeldstein.com/doubts_about_oki_and_sakai/ What Michael Feldstein Is Learning About Online Learning...Online Wed, 08 Oct 2008 07:19:28 +0000 By: Martin Terre Blanche http://mfeldstein.com/doubts_about_oki_and_sakai/#comment-57 Martin Terre Blanche Fri, 27 Aug 2004 15:40:20 +0000 513746511#comment-57 You say: "You're going to want to do it in a way such that you don't have to rewrite your software (on top of having to figure out how to transfer your data) every time you swap out one service for another." - Yes, absolutely. So if for example flickr folds or changes in such a way that it no longer works as a means of sharing photographs for a group of students/practitioners working together, it should be relatively easy to switch to something else. And each group or individual using the "service integration system" should be able to easily choose from a menu of possibilities which ones they want to plug into. Like you I don't really know what would be required to make this happen, and suspect that it might be very difficult. However, I also have a strong intuition that there is a first relatively simple step that could bring this much closer to reality, namely some form of persistent identity for people using a service integration system. The way I imagine it is that you'd sign on once to the integration system, then use other services as an when you need to without having to worry about sign-up (the system creates identities on the various services for you) or sign-on. Secondly, the system would allow people to form groups and your group membership information would be carried into the various services that you use. Hard to do, but not <b>that</b> hard. You also say "you need a way to aggregate data about what each student is doing in all the various tools". Again agreed, but to a large extent this has already been made easy by the fact that RSS is starting to pop up everywhere. Increasingly, whatever people do online leaves an RSS trace, and it is not that hard to slice and dice these to produce, for example, an integrated feed of what a group of students are up to. Where no webfeeds are produced, often stuff at least does end up on a google-indexed web page, which makes <a href="http://www.criticalmethods.org/collab/2004/5/news.htm#1085724459960">shibboleth collaboration</a> possible. You say: “You’re going to want to do it in a way such that you don’t have to rewrite your software (on top of having to figure out how to transfer your data) every time you swap out one service for another.” - Yes, absolutely. So if for example flickr folds or changes in such a way that it no longer works as a means of sharing photographs for a group of students/practitioners working together, it should be relatively easy to switch to something else. And each group or individual using the “service integration system” should be able to easily choose from a menu of possibilities which ones they want to plug into. Like you I don’t really know what would be required to make this happen, and suspect that it might be very difficult. However, I also have a strong intuition that there is a first relatively simple step that could bring this much closer to reality, namely some form of persistent identity for people using a service integration system. The way I imagine it is that you’d sign on once to the integration system, then use other services as an when you need to without having to worry about sign-up (the system creates identities on the various services for you) or sign-on. Secondly, the system would allow people to form groups and your group membership information would be carried into the various services that you use. Hard to do, but not that hard. You also say “you need a way to aggregate data about what each student is doing in all the various tools”. Again agreed, but to a large extent this has already been made easy by the fact that RSS is starting to pop up everywhere. Increasingly, whatever people do online leaves an RSS trace, and it is not that hard to slice and dice these to produce, for example, an integrated feed of what a group of students are up to. Where no webfeeds are produced, often stuff at least does end up on a google-indexed web page, which makes shibboleth collaboration possible.

]]> By: Michael Feldstein http://mfeldstein.com/doubts_about_oki_and_sakai/#comment-56 Michael Feldstein Thu, 26 Aug 2004 18:34:17 +0000 513746511#comment-56 I don't think we need to attribute evil intent in order to explain the problems with OKI and its ilk. To begin with, the developers are trying to solve the hard and very real problem of vendor lock-in. As <a href="http://www.downes.ca/cgi-bin/website/find.cgi?category=1020631478">Stephen Downes (among others) has noted</a>, Blackboard's tendency to produce vendor lock-in is actually touted as a virtue among investors. The way to break that is with interoperability and portability standards. That's vital in the long-run, but it's also a hard problem. And it may be that a grand engineering project at this early stage in the game is not the best way to go about it. Which brings me to my next point. OKI comes from MIT, which has a reputation for hideously over-engineering their internal IT projects. I know of at least one group there that decided to go to an outside tech project because they had no confidence that the equivalent internally-developed tool would ever be finished. The engineers were too busy building their castle in the sky. I'm not qualified to judge whether OKI has fallen prey to the same tendency but I have heard enough to worry me from people who <b>are</b> qualified to judge. The alternative way to go would be something like the strategy that you (Martin) have been advocating and like the Kotke post you reference describes. This would <b>not</b> solve the lock-in problem, but it <b>would</b> allow for more rapid experimentation and evolution. Also, portability headaches aren't quite as bad when the thing you're locked into is only one part of an environment that you built for yourself out of pieces that you like. The bigger challenge would be interoperability. You need a way to aggregate data about what each student is doing in all the various tools. And you're going to want to do it in a way such that you don't have to rewrite your software (on top of having to figure out how to transfer your data) every time you swap out one service for another. I'm not saying that this can't be done; I'm saying I don't know what's involved with doing it. I don’t think we need to attribute evil intent in order to explain the problems with OKI and its ilk. To begin with, the developers are trying to solve the hard and very real problem of vendor lock-in. As Stephen Downes (among others) has noted, Blackboard’s tendency to produce vendor lock-in is actually touted as a virtue among investors. The way to break that is with interoperability and portability standards. That’s vital in the long-run, but it’s also a hard problem. And it may be that a grand engineering project at this early stage in the game is not the best way to go about it.

Which brings me to my next point. OKI comes from MIT, which has a reputation for hideously over-engineering their internal IT projects. I know of at least one group there that decided to go to an outside tech project because they had no confidence that the equivalent internally-developed tool would ever be finished. The engineers were too busy building their castle in the sky. I’m not qualified to judge whether OKI has fallen prey to the same tendency but I have heard enough to worry me from people who are qualified to judge.

The alternative way to go would be something like the strategy that you (Martin) have been advocating and like the Kotke post you reference describes. This would not solve the lock-in problem, but it would allow for more rapid experimentation and evolution. Also, portability headaches aren’t quite as bad when the thing you’re locked into is only one part of an environment that you built for yourself out of pieces that you like. The bigger challenge would be interoperability. You need a way to aggregate data about what each student is doing in all the various tools. And you’re going to want to do it in a way such that you don’t have to rewrite your software (on top of having to figure out how to transfer your data) every time you swap out one service for another. I’m not saying that this can’t be done; I’m saying I don’t know what’s involved with doing it.

]]> By: Martin Terre Blanche http://mfeldstein.com/doubts_about_oki_and_sakai/#comment-55 Martin Terre Blanche Thu, 26 Aug 2004 16:45:10 +0000 513746511#comment-55 My immediate response to your question (Are we trying to over-engineer something that perhaps would work best through organic growth?) is a definite yes. But maybe I've become too indoctrinated by "small pieces" ideology and by my experience of how plain old html, blogs and webfeeds actually work, while more complex, more centralised systems (such as the Groupwise "collaboration services" used by my university) don't. So maybe I shouldn't dismiss a top-down, expert-driven approach too quickly. Let's wait and see. Jason Kotke by the way has a lovely post on the "web as platform" at http://www.kottke.org/04/08/web-platform On a related note - your anonymous correspondent says s/he fears "that only the elite, the MITs, UMiches, Stanfords, will be able to contribute and play in this field". I think it's a valid fear, but goes beyond this. Over-engineered projects of the sort s/he warns against often feel to me like an attempt by some Manderin class to hold on to control over e-learning (and internet-based collaboration generally) - to freeze out the small-time tinkerers who are actually what the internet is about. My immediate response to your question (Are we trying to over-engineer something that perhaps would work best through organic growth?) is a definite yes. But maybe I’ve become too indoctrinated by “small pieces” ideology and by my experience of how plain old html, blogs and webfeeds actually work, while more complex, more centralised systems (such as the Groupwise “collaboration services” used by my university) don’t. So maybe I shouldn’t dismiss a top-down, expert-driven approach too quickly. Let’s wait and see. Jason Kotke by the way has a lovely post on the “web as platform” at http://www.kottke.org/04/08/web-platform

On a related note - your anonymous correspondent says s/he fears “that only the elite, the MITs, UMiches, Stanfords, will be able to contribute and play in this field”. I think it’s a valid fear, but goes beyond this. Over-engineered projects of the sort s/he warns against often feel to me like an attempt by some Manderin class to hold on to control over e-learning (and internet-based collaboration generally) - to freeze out the small-time tinkerers who are actually what the internet is about.

]]>