Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Architectural design of a LMS with LTSA-conformance

  • Published:
Education and Information Technologies Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper illustrates an approach for architectural design of a Learning Management System (LMS), which is verifiable against the Learning Technology System Architecture (LTSA) conformance rules. We introduce a new method for software architectural design that extends the Unified Modeling Language (UML) component diagram with the formal architectural style of Acme, hence, combines the advantages of the visual appeal of a graphical method and preciseness of a formal method. We propose some new stereotypes for UML component-connector style to incorporate Acme style within UML. A UML meta-model for the design components is also proposed to elucidate the relationships between the components. We also propose a verification method to ensure that the design artifact is holding conformance with LTSA standard. The design process as well as the verification process entails additional knowledge about the domain, which is supplied by the domain Ontology. The LTSA conformance rules, written in natural language, are represented more formally with help of Conceptual Graph representation, before using them in the verification process. Finally, we introduce a verification method that tries to find out a design pattern in the architectural design that conforms to the particular conformance rule intended to check. The verification process also introduces a goodness measure of the conformance.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • AcmeStudio url: http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~./acme/AcmeStudio/index.html . Accessed on May, 2014.

  • Allen, R., & Garlan, D. (1994). Formalizing architectural connection. In Proceedings of the 16th international conference on Software engineering (pp. 71–80). IEEE Computer Society Press.

  • Avgeriou, P. (2003). Describing, instantiating & evaluating a reference architecture: A case study. Enterprise Architect Journal, 24.

  • Bjørner, D. (2000). Domain engineering: A software engineering discipline in need of research. In SOFSEM 2000: Theory and Practice of Informatics (pp. 1–17). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Bjørner, D. (2006). Software Engineering 3: Domains, requirements, and software design (Vol. 3). Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Chandrasekaran, B., Josephson, J. R., & Benjamins, V. R. (1999). What are ontologies, and why do we need them? IEEE Intelligent Systems, 14(1), 20–26.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CharGer url: http://charger.sourceforge.net/. accessed on May, 2014.

  • Choe, H., & Kim, T. (2005). An enhanced LTSA model providing contextual knowledge for intelligent e-learning systems. Journal of Information Science and Engineering, 21(5), 849–858.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farance, F., & Tonkel, J. (2003). Draft Standard for Learning Technologies. Learning Technology Systems Architecture (LTSA). IEEE Technical report, DOI: 10.1109/IEEESTD.2003.94410.

  • Finke, W. F. (2004). Basic LMS Architecture for Learner-Centric LearnFlows or How Reusable Learning Objects Fit into Co-Constructivist Learning Processes. In Wissen in Aktion (pp. 309–328).

  • Garlan, D. (2000). Software architecture: a roadmap. In Proceedings of the Conference on the Future of Software Engineering (pp. 91–101). ACM.

  • Garlan, D., Cheng, S. W., & Kompanek, A. J. (2002). Reconciling the needs of architectural description with object-modeling notations. Science of Computer Programming, 44(1), 23–49.

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Garlan, D., Monroe, R., & Wile, D. (2010). Acme: an architecture description interchange language. In CASCON First Decade High Impact Papers (pp. 159–173). IBM Corp.

  • Goulão, M., & e Abreu, F. B. (2003). Bridging the gap between Acme and UML 2.0 for CBD. In Proceedings of Specification and Verification of Component-Based Systems (SAVSCB’03), workshop at ESEC/FSE 2003 (pp. 75–79).

  • Herbert, J., Dutertre, B., Riemenschneider, R., & Stavridou, V. (1999). A formalization of software architecture. In FM’99—Formal Methods (pp. 116–133). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Hofmeister, C., Nord, R. L., & Soni, D. (1999). Describing software architecture with UML. In Software Architecture (pp. 145–159). Springer US.

  • IEEE P1484.1/D9, 2001-11-30 Draft Standard for Learning Technology: Learning Technology Systems Architecture (LTSA), available at: https://ieee-sa.centraldesktop.com/ltsc/.

  • Kaiya, H., & Saeki, M. (2006). Using domain ontology as domain knowledge for requirements elicitation. In Requirements Engineering, 14th IEEE International Conference (pp. 189–198). IEEE.

  • Kaiya, H., Shimizu, Y., Yasui, H., Kaijiri, K., & Saeki, M. (2010). Enhancing domain knowledge for requirements elicitation with web mining. In Software Engineering Conference (APSEC), 2010 17th Asia Pacific (pp. 3–12). IEEE.

  • Kim, H. M., & Fox, M. S. (2002). Using enterprise reference models for automated ISO 9000 compliance evaluation. In System Sciences, 2002. HICSS. Proceedings of the 35th Annual Hawaii International Conference on (pp. 1278–1287). IEEE.

  • Kumar, P., Samaddar, S. G., Samaddar, A. B., & Misra, A. K. (2010). Extending IEEE LTSA e-Learning framework in secured SOA environment. InEducation Technology and Computer (ICETC), 2010 2nd International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. V2-136). IEEE.

  • Luckham, D. C., Kenney, J. J., Augustin, L. M., Vera, J., Bryan, D., & Mann, W. (1995). Specification and analysis of system architecture using Rapide. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 21(4), 336–354.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee, J., & Kramer, J. (1996). Dynamic structure in software architectures. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 21(6), 3–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mckenzie, F. D., Petty, M. D., & Xu, Q. (2004). Usefulness of software architecture description languages for modeling and analysis of federates and federation architectures. Simulation, 80(11), 559–576.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvidovic, N., & Taylor, R. N. (2000). A classification and comparison framework for software architecture description languages. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 26(1), 70–93.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medvidovic, N., Rosenblum, D. S., & Taylor, R. N. (1999). A language and environment for architecture-based software development and evolution. In Software Engineering, 1999. Proceedings of the 1999 International Conference on (pp. 44–53). IEEE.

  • Meekel, J., Horton, T. B., France, R. B., Mellone, C., & Dalvi, S. (1997, May). From domain models to architecture frameworks. In ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes (Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 75–80). ACM.

  • Mokarat, C., & Vatanawood, W. (2013). UML Component Diagram to Acme Compiler. In Information Science and Applications (ICISA), International Conference on (pp. 1–4). IEEE. 2013.

  • Pahl, C., & Holohan, E. (2004). Ontology technology for the development and deployment of learning technology systems-a survey. In World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications (Vol. 2004, No. 1, pp. 2077–2084).

  • Peredo, R., Balladares, L., & Peredo, I. (2006). A semantic web application to automate the construction of didactic material for web-based education system. In Web Information Systems–WISE 2006 Workshops (pp. 306–317). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

  • Prieto-Díaz, R. (1990). Domain analysis: an introduction. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 15(2), 47–54.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Protégé : url: http://protege.stanford.edu/ . accessed on May, 2014.

  • Rumpe, B., Schoenmakers, M., Radermacher, A., & Schurr, A. (1999). UML + ROOM as a standard ADL?. In Engineering of Complex Computer Systems, 1999. ICECCS’99. Fifth IEEE International Conference on (pp. 43–53). IEEE.

  • Selic, B., Gullekson, G., & Ward, P. T. (1994). Real-time object-oriented modeling (Vol. 2). New York: Wiley.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, S., & Dasgupta, R. (2015). Use of semi-formal and formal methods in requirement engineering of ILMS. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 40(1), 1–13.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sengupta, S., Chaki, N., & Dasgupta, R. (2009). Learners’ Quanta based Design of a Learning Management System, International Journal of Education and. Information Technologies, Issue 1, Volume 3, 2009, p-67.

  • Sowa, J. F. (1998). Conceptual graphs. In Handbook on Architectures of Information Systems (pp. 287–311). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Bengal Institute of Technology, Kolkata, India

    Souvik Sengupta

  2. National Institute of Technical Training and Research, Kolkata, India

    Ranjan Dasgupta

Authors
  1. Souvik Sengupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ranjan Dasgupta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Souvik Sengupta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sengupta, S., Dasgupta, R. Architectural design of a LMS with LTSA-conformance. Educ Inf Technol 22, 271–296 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9443-z

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-015-9443-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation