Closed MarcelUntied closed 4 years ago
Yes, this is the intention.
Some open items that will be explored in the technical track:
I think the update from the market place should be translated in a list of products that are confirmed by the user (teacher/pupil/student). So the LMS knows which products will be available to the user. The update from the Learning Application should be the link to the real product. The update from the Learning Application is the 'real' delivery in my opinion
I think the update from the market place should be translated in a list of products that are confirmed by the user (teacher/pupil/student). So the LMS knows which products will be available to the user. The update from the Learning Application should be the link to the real product. The update from the Learning Application is the 'real' delivery in my opinion
Very good discussion that we need to understand by heart. Clifton (from content delivery perspective) and me (from distributer/LMS perspective) have spend several hours/beers on this point together with Albert fromTLN. According to the Dutch situation - with tenders on learnng materials for Secondary Education the distributer takes the responsibility to fulfill the learning materials. Technically it's always - at the end - the LA that provides this fulfillment and the MP can 'jump high and low' to get this arranged but the LA need to provide. Therefor we came to an understanding with the triangel where the moment the entitlement is settled on the LML (LeermiddelenLijst) the MP (or sales agent) provides that information to the LMS (or multiple) (so that they can show the purchased or (allowed) selected materials as tiles (links) in the LMS (read the MP has delivered ... functionally), the MP also informs the LA's to inform them "be prepared, these materials will be used in the future for this number of people for these school, vak, klas, etc). As the LA can technically fulfill (read deliver) it will inform the LMS "I'm ready all is settled" (might be last minute change in URL or whatever). As we all deliver transparent info (MP, LMS, LP) then we would hope to see (more or less) similar figures here ...
Also from a schoolsperspective (we discussed it in track 2) the LMC / ICT-coordinator wants to 'check' if everything is delivered by the sales-agent. So from the sales-agent perspective it is a kind of an confirmation that everything is delivered (in the LMS of the school) . The next step is what Winfried described: is it accessible and does it work (provided by the LA). For me the question is: is the fulfillment in the LMS after the creation of entitlement of is a separated step?
@benkoers Good question!
Can we rephrase the question as it is now not clear for me. something like: Is the fulfillment of the LML in the LMS done after the establishment of entitlement or is it a seperate step?
see on entitlement also here
Can a reference to which use case(step) this (and other) question or issue is related be added in tags or description? This makes it possible to backtrack the context without reading all the posts (e.g. OA3.4 or UC3 step 4)
Is the fulfillment of the LML in the LMS done after the establishment of entitlement or is it a seperate step? This should be two separate steps. If LML has been established between school and sales agent, this information can be used for setting up the pre-condition of the LMS. Entitlements do not go to an LA until the end user has asked for confirmation, or when the school can only supply the correct numbers in time, given the time. AND since the LA returns a signal from receive and "ready" to both LMS and MP, separating these information streams is no problem
Input work stream Finance & Admin: