Define content and structure of LML Entity

[cliftonc]

The Leermiddelenlijst is a crucial entity in the exchange of information between the Marketplace, LMS and LA.

Notes so far:

• It will be something that evolves over time (so expect updates).
• It will get more granular and specific over time.
• Ideally the same (or similar) entity can be exchanged in the scenarios of OA.3.0 (to simplify).
• We should do a check if the entity can also be used for non-LML scenarios (e.g. individual order) in future by making it support both use cases.
• ...

[cliftonc]

@edwinverwoerd @niesink any chance that we can start to explore what the LML (or perhaps 'list of entitlements') may contain over coming days? Happy to assist in any way thats helpful - @HJTLN @dpronk this may be something you are also able to contribute to?

[niesink]

Sure, I can make some time either Wednesday or Thursday this week, I'll be out for a small holiday next week.

[niesink]

The diagram below shows what an entitlement (which I believe is what an LML consists of?) might look like.

I've tried to take into consideration all the remarks (on what an entitlement actually is) in all the issues in the functional overview repository. However I'd be surprised if I haven't gotten a couple of things wrong as this is not my/our main area of expertise. So let's see this as a starting point for further discussion 🙂

The entities School, Class, Student and Teacher here reference the same real-life entities as in #28 though their exact representation might differ in this situation (e.g. it might be sufficient to just reference a student by their ECK iD and not exchange any additional personal data).

[cliftonc]

@niesink thanks - this is a great start.

A few questions / additions:

• What would state represent on the entitlement?
• I think we need to add payment model to the entitlement (this is a field specific to a MP > LP relationship that instructs the LP under which model the entitlement has been created). Examples: pre-pay, on-first-usage, subscription, subscription-with-30day-trial.
• I wonder if the school is better underneath the Entitlee as a parent to the Group?

[mcginkel]

Entitlement needs an id, so you can refer to it. (updates, refer to it from usage messages)

[mcginkel]

Are group and individual mutual exclusive? The entitlement is either for one person or for a group?

[mcginkel]

Should it be individual or a list of individuals? Same question for group: one or list of groups

I prefer lists in both cases

[mcginkel]

What is the meaning of amount? Max? or a forecast? If this is a Max, who should count how many are already used? (and why)

Can we remove amount ?

[mcginkel]

The subject code and level in Group:

• is that how the school sees it or is that standardised? so the SIS will give you the school's educations and levels, which can be mapped on a more standard: School's: "Wonderfull life college, year 1" ----> maps to Havo1 and VWO 1 School: "Brede onderbouw dakpan" ---> Havo 1, HAVO 2, VWO 1, VWO 2

Same for subject code: do we use the schools "Bijzondere filosofy" --> "geloof, leven en filosofie, Code 1059" (https://wetten.overheid.nl/BWBR0042332/2020-07-01)

I would suggest we make room for both. So we have the view from the SIS, and the mapping to reality.

[mcginkel]

Is a group always for one subject/level?

Suggestion: Yes, make a new group in the same entitlement if needed

[cliftonc]

Are group and individual mutual exclusive? The entitlement is either for one person or for a group?

I think they are exclusive - its either one or the other.

[cliftonc]

Should it be individual or a list of individuals? Same question for group: one or list of groups

I prefer lists in both cases

Given each entitlement is only for one product, I wonder if the scenario of multiple groups is realistic?

I think for the individual we are better off if we map one entitlement = 1 product for 1 individual.

[edwinverwoerd]

I I thought the way the LMS module creates its lists was out of scope. And that this is done entirely within the MP environment. What we have recorded within the Finance track is that the outcome (i.e. if the LML has been established [we do not speak any more about an entitlement any more here) makes the following information available to an LMS:

SchoolID EAN Level Grade Number Period of validity of the LML list

It is logical that the LMS has received data "in advance" from the SIS School Structure and must be sufficient to link the LML data back to a person. But maybe I don't understand the issue very well.

[cliftonc]

@edwinverwoerd you are correct, the Individual flow we are envisaging only applies for scenarios where an individual directly purchases for themselves, not via the LML - so for vocational.

[mcginkel]

Should it be individual or a list of individuals? Same question for group: one or list of groups I prefer lists in both cases

Given each entitlement is only for one product, I wonder if the scenario of multiple groups is realistic?

See earlyer comment on "Is a group always for one subject/level?"

[mcginkel]

I would like to see Both MP identifier and LA identifier in the entitlement.

Is publisher a name we us? or do we use LA?

[edwinverwoerd]

@edwinverwoerd you are correct, the Individual flow we are envisaging only applies for scenarios where an individual directly purchases for themselves, not via the LML - so for vocational.

Okay but I think that the SA/FA will provide this data
VO -> SchoolID, UserID, EAN, Periode geldigheid {B2B waarbij school betaalt, denk aan keuze vakken) MBO (persoonlijke aanschaf) -> UserID, EAN, Startdatum

And of course, the LMS will show the person what they need based on his course etc.

[cliftonc]

Initial version now here: https://github.com/stichtingsem/technology-prototype/pull/33/commits/8c6f1f7f88b8c50e32df62045bcfd64bcbc83fc3

[edwinverwoerd]

I would like to see Both MP identifier and LA identifier in the entitlement.

Is publisher a name we us? or do we use LA?

MP identifier seems logical to me. But not LA. For this, the Catalog (service) of the LA's as a source must be consulted. The EAN is then the key to do this.

[cliftonc]

@edwinverwoerd the only advantage of including the LA information (which I have in the first pass, along now with the MP identifier) is that it makes it easier to resolve issues as the information is at hand.

We can discuss what the MP identifier is, but my simplistic view is that it is probably best as the base URL of the MP - e.g. iddink.nl - better than 1,2,3.

[edwinverwoerd]

@edwinverwoerd the only advantage of including the LA information (which I have in the first pass, along now with the MP identifier) is that it makes it easier to resolve issues as the information is at hand.

We can discuss what the MP identifier is, but my simplistic view is that it is probably best as the base URL of the MP - e.g. iddink.nl - better than 1,2,3.

Okay and yes the smarter the better. But when I think of 2.3 million licenses, we are not going to exchange a lot of double data. Because what is the right one.

If there is an issue, the data can be displayed on the screen from different sources. With which we immediately reconnect with the principle of limit the transmission of data that you can also retrieve directly.

[niesink]

In response to https://github.com/stichtingsem/technology-prototype/issues/8#issuecomment-673494329:

I would suggest we make room for both. So we have the view from the SIS, and the mapping to reality.

I see a school_subject_code and school_level was added to the API spec here: https://github.com/stichtingsem/technology-prototype/blob/44a07d6ff8cb0c0a1192fe927e1c5b45bed58045/reference/entitlement.v1.yaml#L319-L324

I'm not sure this is useful/realistic, as in my experience a school internally might use their own name/abbrevation for a certain subject, but technically they will still on rely on official codes and levels. The only related use case I can think of is subjects that are not (yet) officially recognized by MinOCW, but in that situation there is no standard_subject_code and perhaps not even a standard_level.

[cliftonc]

@niesink I added it as I wasn't sure - it is optional and for display only, thinking more on the human side - it may be useful to ensure that if a school has renamed something that the other systems in its ecosystem can also refer to it by the name they expect?

[niesink]

@cliftonc yeah I agree that might be useful, though in that case the two fields schoolSubjectCode and schoolLevel should be replaced with schoolSubjectName I think. I don't see a school using/defining their own code or level.