Outils personnels
Vous êtes ici : Accueil Publications Standards ePortfolio Interoperability framework Green Paper

EPICC E-portfolio Green Paper

EPICC E-portfolio Green Paper

You are invited to contribute ideas towards this "green paper" for e-portfolio issues.

Please help us make it into a most useful reference point for issues, approaches, and possible solutions in the area of e-portfolio technology and application. You can do this by finding the most relevant page and leaving comments there.

This is a list of the sections of the green paper, with brief outlines. Click on the relevant link to see more.

  1. Policy and public agenda civil society issues and concerns. What issues are there which either stand in the way of the adoption of e-portfolio technology, or cause stakeholders concerns about it? At this point, enumerating the issues is a good start, to help people scope and plan responses and answers.
  2. EPMS Electronic Portfolio Management System main functionality and features. It would be useful to put together a consensus outline of this. The proposed fundamentals include a core service
    • allowing management of personal information
      • its viewing and organisation
      • its deletion, editing, possibly addition (the last usually through an associated service)
    • authorising permission to others to view information
    • with accessibility and usability as features
  3. Organisational implications. E-portfolios also have implications for the organisations or enterprises that the individuals belong to.
  4. SOA - service oriented architecture. We need to be able to exploit fully the contents of an e-portfolio, using a multiplicity of services, e.g., cross-reference the contents with standards of competence hosted by an industry sector governing body in order to present a file for accreditation of prior work experience; search or apply for a job. What is expected, by way of architecture:
    • combining peer to peer networks and client-server technologies to interact with various institutions and organizations;
    • defining web services that support the required (human) services;
    • allowing use of multiple repositories;
    • using identity federation to ease SSO and privacy support;
  5. Functionality of closely associated services. Even with a lightweight (or "thin") e-portfolio service core, practice involving e-portfolio systems is likely to cover several related service areas.
    • What services are likely to be most closely associated with an e-portfolio core service?
    • What functionality are these services likely to offer?
    • How might they interact with the e-portfolio core service?
  6. Interoperability, specifications and standards; interfaces with associated services. We identify two main kinds of interoperability:
    • transfer / handing over of whole portfolio;
    • communication / sharing of part portfolio with other systems.
    What kind of specifications are needed properly to support the interfaces both with the desired services, and with the repositories? Can we consider UKLeaP and IMS ePortfolio as defining requirements? What is the way forward? Can we use a technology with built-in support for relationships, such as Topic Maps or RDF?
  7. Repositories, replication and correction. We need to be able to aggregate, in a central location, all the information about a person, e.g. the trail left in various information systems of organizations I've been dealing with, from kindergarten to nursing home. We need a system resilient enough that when a primary source of information disappears or when technical standards evolve, it is still able to be used. How can these best be arranged?
  8. Permissions and access control. For what kinds of person or entity should permission be able to be set? What kinds of e-portfolio information should permission be able to be set for? Answers to both questions can feed into an ontology for the e-portfolio domain. How can we allow for material and resources where copyright is not owned by the individual?
  9. Authentication and security. Is there anything different about these issues in e-portfolio domain, distinguishing them from similar issues in other domains? How can identity be authenticated, both for owners and viewers, both within institutions and outside them?
  10. Skills and competency framework interoperability. It is clear that, unless skills and competencies have suitable relationships, evidence collected under one framework will be difficult to use under another. What "meta-framework" would be useful for the purposes of constructing e-portfolio related skills frameworks, ideally serving other purposes as well? What is the role of Topic Maps and/or RDF?
  11. Groupware, collaborative and peer-to-peer technologies. It has been well pointed out that some technologies are already widely disseminated and popular with some groups, particularly the young. These need careful enumeration. How can these be most effectively worked in to e-portfolio systems?

In some sections, requirements or needs are stated, which the technology should satisfy.

In some sections, a strategy is outlined.

In all sections, questions are raised to suggest fruitful areas of further enquiry.

 

Actions sur le document