Forum .LRN Q&A: Re: .LRN as a distribution of OpenACS

Collapse
Posted by xx xx on
OK, I understand the "vertical" part better now.
But what part of "vertical" is and remains openACS? I'ld really like to know in terms of:
  • application (solution/functionality)
  • code
Is this something OCT and .LRN TAB (need to) know?

Semantics are important, given the planned world-wide release . It reminds me of the discussion around writing specs. Should technical or functional jargon be used?

Who are the ones to convince if one wants implement .LRN? I think we should use the jargon that decisionmakers use.

In a project one would probably create one or more "focusgroup meetings with 10-12 decisionmakers" to see what they report back if we try to explain .LRN to them ( including its relationship to openACS and , off topic but important, 450 bugs).

Collapse
Posted by Malte Sussdorff on
Let's take .LRN vs. OpenACS as an example. OpenACS offers all the functionality of forums, file storage and so on.

.LRN is a prepackaged solution which installs on top of stock OpenACS code pieces and preloads the database to make it easy for an educational environment make best use of OpenACS. This means, you get forums, file-storage and other packages preinstalled, you have the roles set correctly for professors and others, you have custom applets that may be different from the stock ones shipped with the new version of OpenACS.

Other vertical solutions that come into my mind:

.NGO for non profits with intranet functionality and the campaign tools that e.g. Greenpeace is using and building.

.WRK a solution for the office space that Lars described some time ago and is working on. Preinstalled and ready to roll, maybe with it's special setup page to install one or more offices (instead of the normal bootstrap installation that comes with OpenACS)

This is where the vertical comes in. It stretches across all functionality of OpenACS, but exposes certain parts in a special way, predefined and packaged towards a certain user group.

For the moment though we are not even close to a state where .LRN is "only" a vertical solution due to the magnitude of changes and additional packages that it incorporates. But the goal (at least to my understanding) has been to create a functional layer on top of OpenACS that makes up .LRN.