1. The uPortal Roadmap uPortal Software Developers Meeting
Jim Farmer, Mike Ivanov, and Ken Weiner
for the
uPortal Software Developers Meeting
Monday, 9 February 2004
Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona USA

2. Some history Version Date Enhancements 1.0 Jul 2000 1.5 Feb 2001 Roles
1.6
Jun 2001
Performance
2.0
Feb 2002
Introduced XSLT architecture
2.1
Dec 2002
Remote channel, Web proxy, statistics
2.2
Jan 2004
Internationalization, WSRP, aggregated layout

3. Purpose of version 2.2
Introduce significant new features that will require further development.
Support exploration of these new features by users
Fully define how subsequent versions of these features should be implemented
Provide guidance for development of portal-based applications

4. Version 2.2 Internationalization Remote portlet “Integrated modes”
Portal framework
Language choice algorithm
Channel awareness
Remote portlet
WSRP-compliance limited to uPortal remote channel functions
“Integrated modes”
Preferences mode--user view plus icons and markers--to change user layout rather than current iconic layout
more

5. Version 2.2 Aggregated Layout
“Layout fragments” consisting of tab and columns
Content “pushed” based on group membership, layout fragment
Enforce “directed” layout through restrictions (priority range, depth, group, immutable, unremovable and hidden restrictions)

6. Limitations of internationalization
Language preferences of browsers inconsistent, numerous; not implemented in 2.2
Java localization supports only two-character language codes; higher education may need three-character codes of ISO 639 January 2003 as adopted by NISO (libraries)
XLIFF editor not yet developed or integrated with Kajita update utility

7. Limitations of “integrated modes”
Not clear which information should be passed between the Java framework and XSLT style sheets (depends upon future channel developer needs)
Possible improvements in user interaction

8. Limitations of aggregated layout
“Layout fragment” limited to “tab and specified columns and channels”
Layout restrictions supported if specified by portal administrator
Need to further enhance the graphical user interface for publish and subscribe of layout fragments (based on user experience and suggestions)

9. Lessons from aggregated layout
Layout control needs to be delegated to departments and faculty rather than portal administrator
Unclear how to visualize impact of layout restrictions; that is, final layout effect of different layout restrictions since they interact with a user’s personal choices and the priorities and restrictions previously assigned to tabs, columns, and channels or portlets

10. The future – version 2.3
In response to Sakai project, implement JSR 168 without concern about performance. May use Pluto code from Apache Software Foundation
Further develop remote portlet following WSRP specification
Deploy further development of 2.2 features if available

11. The future – version 3.0
Implement JSR 168 compliance, also likely using Pluto (subject to January testing)
Performance improvements
Deploy further development of 2.2 features as available

12. uPortal and JSR 168

13. Developing features
WSRP and JSR-168 as reference implementations, experience suggest
Internationalization
Use of XLIFF specification
Implement browser language preference if reasonable
User interface
Extend “integrated modes”
Modify as experience suggests
Cornell channel volume, Hull studies, accessibility

14. WSRP support

15. Sakai funded development
January – September 2004
JSR 168 for versions 2.3 and 3.0
OSIDs implementation if defined and as needed
January – December 2005 (Proposed)
GUI for User priority ranges
Layout fragment constructor
Node restrictions editor
Layout fragment subscription support
User-modifiable layout fragments
Layout fragment support for flexible fragment depth
Layout filtering
Layout fragment set support
Delayed authentication support

16. Likely uPortal priorities
Stability
Performance
Features
Product support
Documentation
Training

17. Likely JA-SIG priorities
Applications implemented as portlets or portal channels, for example:
OSPI ePortfolio (Indiana University)
Sakai collaboration “tools” based on the University of Michigan’s CHEF tools
Sakai Course Management System
CuCMS Content Management System (Columbia University)
Services oriented architecture based on Web Services (XML, SOAP, WS-Security, SAML)

18. Keep in mind …
JA-SIG priorities and activities represents the interests, needs, and resources of the participants.
Changing needs in higher and further education under increasing pressure for productivity improvements.
Commercial firms are still trying to accommodate to open source software development.

19. The end jim farmer jxf@immagic.com +1-202-296-2807

20. Permissions
JA-SIG publications are in the public domain and can be freely reproduced, These presentations may contain material reproduced with permission of the Copyright owner. Users are requested to comply with any copyright restrictions and to appropriately reference any materials that are used in their own works.