García-Holgado, A., & García-Peñalvo, F. J. (2014).

Architectural pattern for the definition of eLearning ecosystems based on Open Source developments. In J. L.
Sierra-Rodríguez, J. M. Dodero-Beardo, & D. Burgos (Eds.), Proceedings of 2014 International Symposium on Computers in Education (SIIE) (Logroño, La Rioja,
Spain, November 12-14, 2014) (pp. 93-98): Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. IEEE Catalog Number CFP1486T-ART.

Architectural pattern for the definition of

eLearning ecosystems based on Open Source
developments

Alicia García-Holgado, Francisco José García-Peñalvo

GRIAL Research Group - IUCE
University of Salamanca, USAL
Salamanca, Spain
{aliciagh, fgarcia}@usal.es

NT
Abstract— The huge penetration of technological ecosystems the integration of different components which should evolve
based on Open Source software, as a technological solution to both individually and collectively.
support the knowledge management of entities and institutions,

I
presents new problems in the development and integration of Within the Research Group in InterAction and eLearning
new software components. The aim of this paper has been to (GRIAL) of the University of Salamanca [4], the authors have
participated in the development of several technological
PR
define an architectural pattern that lays the foundations to define
and implement eLearning ecosystems. The pattern definition has
been realized from a comparative analysis of the Strengths,
Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats of a number of real case
studies developed in different contexts. As a result, we have
ecosystems oriented to the knowledge management in different
contexts in order to solve real problems [5][6].
The analysis of the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities
E-
obtained an architectural pattern composed by several layers and and Threats (SWOT) [7] of each ecosystem has allowed the
a set of external elements that provides a solution to the main identification of the underlying problems and the definition of
problems identified in the development of technological an architectural pattern [8]. The objective of the pattern is
ecosystems. The pattern has been tested in a real context, establishing the bases for the definition and implementation of
PR

concretely in the Public Administration, its which has
demonstrated that works properly.
Keywords—eLearning ecosystems, information systems,
architectural pattern, software engineering, reusable software,
Open Source software.
I. INTRODUCTION
Over recent years the number of companies and institutions
that are committed to use Free Software [1] and Open Source
developments [2] as technological support to manage the
knowledge that is generated within them are increasingly.
In this context, the proposed solutions to support the
different problems and goals related with the knowledge
management are based on the definition and implementation of
technological ecosystems, a set of software components related
between them through information flows in a physical
environment that supports such flows [3].
In the case of the knowledge management oriented to
learning, the eLearning ecosystems are adapted to the evolution
of the learning management that takes place both in companies
and institutions.
Despite the benefits of the use of technological ecosystems,
its implementation in the entities that choose this kind of
solution has greater complexity than systems that were being
used until a few years ago because, in general terms, involve
eLearning ecosystems [9] that are be able to solve different
problems of knowledge management in any kind of
organization or institution. These problems are described in
this work.
Both the description of case studies and the comparative
analysis of them, that are the knowledge base for the definition
of the proposed pattern, are available in previous works
[10][11].
In the following sections this paper describe the
environment and necessary conditions to apply the pattern, the
problems that resolves, the proposed solution, a real example
where the pattern has been used and, finally, the main
conclusions of this work.
II. CONTEXT
The knowledge management is among the main needs that
should meet any kind of organization or institution [12][13].
From the small and medium enterprise (SME) to the largest
corporate groups, and from the training centers to the
universities, generate a large amount of knowledge. This can
entail large losses both economic and human level if it is not
properly managed.
Enterprises and institutions use information systems to
support all its internal and external processes management. To
do this they have different software elements among which can
be found mainly the ERP (Enterprise Resources Planning), “are
software packages composed of several modules, such as
human resources, sales, finance and production, providing
cross-organization integration of data through imbedded
business processes. These software packages can be
customized to answer the specific needs of each organization”
[14].
The importance of giving value to that knowledge has been
increasing over recent years. This has led to institutions and
companies to seek technological solutions to cover their
changing needs and complement the information systems
commonly used so far. The technological ecosystems provide a
solution to this problem. Many entities and institutions have
included new software tools within their workflows,
integrating them with the software components of each
organization, in order to support the emerging needs.
The technological ecosystems are the evolution of the
information systems. The technological ecosystem can be
NT
defined as a composed system by a set of modules that provide
the necessary functionality for managing the internal and
external business processes of the company, for supporting the
I
information flows among the different components of the
system [3].
III. PROBLEMS PR
The comparative analysis of different software solutions
based on technological ecosystems has allowed the
E-
identification of the main problems that appear when these
kind of solutions are implemented in an organization or
institution:
PR
• The knowledge management within an institution or
organization depends on a large number of factors both
internal (employees profile, workflows, etc.) and
external (cultural contexts, market, etc.), which have
influence directly in the definition and evolution of the
technological ecosystem that support such
management.
• There is a huge amount of knowledge that not has
enough visibility to the outside of the technological
ecosystem.
• The organizations and institutions do not have enough
knowledge about ICT market; this implies a problem
when they have to define the best solution to cover
their needs. There are many organizations that
customize and adapt proprietary software solutions.
This kind of software requires a continued investment
in order to support the changing business needs. The
integration with other systems and its maintenance are
an economic and logistical problem for the companies
that choose this kind of solutions.
• Many entities and institutions have technological
solutions that should be integrated with the new
technological ecosystem.
• The solutions based on Open Source software are best
adapted to the changing needs of the entities but the
wide range of solutions complicates the selection of
the proper tools.
• There are a large amount of applications require for the
organizations to support their needs. In many cases,
not exist a proper connection among the different tools,
both technological and methodological level. This
often involves inconsistency of the data, which are
spread among the different applications, and as a
consequence do not exist a global vision of the
information and knowledge generated within the
organization.
• Most of applications provide tools for user
management and authentication. This feature is a
usability problem that gets worse proportionally to the
increase in the number of components of the
ecosystem.
• The integration of the components is not always
performed at the business logic level and presentation.
The integration usually is performed at data level. It
introduces strong dependencies among the
applications, implying a barrier to ensure the evolution
of the ecosystem.
• The ecosystem definition is carried out, in many cases,
from outside of the organization or institution. It
implies more effort to define properly the information
flows and the objectives to be achieved.
• Exist a strong evolving component in the technological
ecosystems in order to adapt them to the natural
evolution of the organizations and institutions. The
evolution can be carried out through the mechanisms
describe below. Depending on the used mechanism,
the system will be affected in different ways, or can be
possible that the mechanism can not be implement:
o Each component evolves individually, so it
should be possible its update. The update of
a component can bring the improvement of
an existing feature or the inclusion of a new
feature. Also, in both cases, the update
should be completely transparent for the
ecosystem.
o Some components can be replaced by others,
either to support a new requirement of the
organization or to improve the existing
functionality.
o Throughout time, the organization needs can
evolve in a way that requires making
changes in the architecture of the ecosystem.
For example, if is necessary a redefinition of
the information flows.
o Finally, Alspaugh [15] introduces a fourth
evolved mechanism of evolution does not
depend on the organization or the ecosystem
itself, but rather is due to a changing in the
license of one or several components. This
change can trigger from an update in the
 license of the ecosystem, up to changes in
some components in order to enforce the
new requirements of the license.
IV. SOLUTION
The proposed pattern is based on the Layers pattern defined
by Buschmann [8] and describes the logic architecture of a
technological ecosystem, regardless of the physical deployment
of the system (Fig. 1).
The main ideas of the pattern are:
• Ensure sustainable development of the technology
ecosystem in a transparent way, so changes in the
support environment will not affect the production
system.
• Achieve a high integration and cohesion degree
and loose coupling among ecosystem components.
NT
• Enable centralized management of different
ecosystem components, with particular emphasis
on the management of data.
I
• Presentation level integration to forward
uniqueness, so that the user is aware that it is in
•
the ecosystem.
PR
Enable centralized user management, covering
both data management and authentication across
E-
the ecosystem.
• Support decision-making based on the analysis of
information flows that take place both within the
ecosystem and outer it.
PR
We proposed a pattern composed by four layers. The lower
layers content general-purpose components that provide a
range of services to the components of the upper layers. The
dependencies between layers are set from the highest to the
lowest, in order to achieve a loose coupling and facilitate
reusability of the low-level components.
First layer is named infrastructure and includes all services
that provide a set of basic functionalities for the proper
operation of the software components located in the upper
layers.
It is recommended that this layer include, at least, three
components. First, a mail server in order to support both
asynchronous messaging and the notifications, alerts,
subscriptions, etc. that can be carry out from other components.
Second, the user management should be centralized, both the
authentication process and the users’ data, through one or
several components. Finally, the information flows that take
place in the system should be monitored in order to provide a
centralized management of the statistics to support the decision
making processes.
The centralization of all generated and used information
within the technological ecosystems, introduces a high degree
of coupling among the different system components. For avoid
this problem, each component manages its own information
and the suitable information flows are defined in those cases in
which information is required by another components. The
static data management layer only is implemented in the
ecosystem if there are cases where exist a data set that are used
by most of the ecosystem components. This is so called
because the data managed are not in constantly changing.
The third layer, services, gathers the software components
that cover the specific needs of an organization or institution.
The users interact with the ecosystem through the components
provided by this layer. The services layer introduces a high
flexibility and adaptability degree because allowing the
addition, modification and removal of different software
components without affect to the rest of the architecture.
Each technological ecosystem should provide two basic
tools among its services. A tool to support decision making
processes based on the management of the information flows
and the software component for monitorization which is
described in the infrastructure layer.
On the other hand, the knowledge management is not only
focused in the internal processes that take place within an
organization or institution, a good knowledge management
includes processes and methods for giving visibility to a part of
the knowledge, if not all, in order to reach the interested public.
For this reason, we introduce in the services layer a component
or a set of components that allow extending the information
flows beyond the ecosystem.
The fourth layer is only focused in the presentation. One of
the main usability problems in the technological ecosystems
lies in the lack of uniqueness among the different software
components, such that the user perceives the ecosystem as a
whole instead of the parts that compose it. The presentation
layer aims solve this problem. For this purpose, the
presentation is uncoupled from the functionality provided by
the services layer. Besides, the access to the technological
ecosystems should be available from any devices so the
presentation layer must ensure the accessibility to the
ecosystem from them.
Finally, the proposed architectural layer is completed with
two required elements in order to achieve rugged ecosystems
that meet the needs properly and may evolve depending on the
decisions taken within the organization or institution. These
elements are two input stream to the ecosystem. One is a strong
methodological base to support the definition and operation of
the system. The other stream is the project and risk
management to ensure the implementation of the methodology
and the ecosystem evolution over time.
 NT
I
PR
E-
Figure 1. Architectural pattern
PR
V. EXAMPLE
When applying the pattern, both the components and the
relationships among them can change from one ecosystem to
other. In addition, the number of layers may change depending
on the needs of the institutions where the ecosystem is
developed.
In order to demonstrate that the architectural pattern works
properly, the pattern has been applied in a real context, the
Public Administration. It is worth mentioning that different
teams have done the development of each component. This
situation has allowed testing the methodology, the project and
risk management, as well as the transparent integration of the
components.
The implemented architecture is proposed in three layers,
infrastructure, static data management and services (Fig. 2).
Regarding the presentation layer, we have remained the
corporate identity at presentation level but we have not
obtained a uniqueness that shows the ecosystem as a whole.
First, the infrastructure layer among whose main
components is: the mail server based on Microsoft Exchange
(http://office.microsoft.com/exchange), the only used software
that is not Open Source but it is required due to requirements
of internal operation of the Public Administration itself; the
indexing server based on Apache Solr
(http://lucene.apache.org/solr/) which aims to significantly
improve the search results on different services offered by the
ecosystem; and the centralization of the user management and
authentication provided by the combination of OpenLDAP
(http://www.openldap.org) and CAS (Central Authentication
Service) (http://www.jasig.org/cas).
The centralization of the static data is performed by the
Document Management System Alfresco
(http://www.alfresco.com), whose functionality has been
extended through the definition of a set of REST services that
provide an interface to other components in order to they can
get the data from the repository.
Finally, the services layer currently covers three
components. The Social Network for public employees
provides a restricted space based on communities of practices
which main goals is connect users with similar interests and
generate knowledge from the interaction between them. The
knowledge generated in the Social Network reverts in other
service of the ecosystem, the knowledge bank. Both
components, based on Drupal (http://www.drupal.org), are
inderectly connected through the static data management layer,
so there are completely independence at the service level. The
third component is the portal for public information based on
Liferay (http://liferay.com).
 NT
I
PR
E-
PR

Figure 2. Architecture of the technological ecosystem for the Public Administration

VI. CONCLUSIONS AKNOWLEDGMENT

The eLearning ecosystems allow managing the knowledge
generated in any kind of organization or institution. These
kinds of solutions have a number of advantages over another
information systems used until some years ago. At the same
time, their implementation involves a higher degree of
complexity, resulting in different problems.
The proposed architectural pattern provides a solution to
the identified problems. On one hand, it allows defining
technological ecosystems for learning management with a high
integration degree and cohesion between the ecosystem
components. On the other hand, it enhances the evolving of the
ecosystems in all its aspects, from the components update to
the redefinition of information flows.
This research is made within University of Salamanca PhD
Programme on Education in the Knowledge Society scope
http://knowledgesociety.usal.es.
We would like to thank the Research Group in InterAction
and eLearning (GRIAL) http://grial.usal.es and the Research
Institute of Educational Sciences (IUCE) of the University of
Salamanca http://iuce.usal.es for their contributions and
support.
REFERENCES
[1] R. M. Stallman and GNU Emacs Manual, "Free Software Foundation,"
El proyecto GNU–Fundación para el software libre, 1986.
[2] Open Source Initiative. (2008). Open Source Definition. Available:
http://www.opensource.org
[3] A. García Holgado and F. J. García Peñalvo, "Análisis de integración de
soluciones basadas en software como servicio para la implantación de
ecosistemas tecnológicos corporativos," in Avances en Informática y
Automática. Séptimo Workshop, J. Cruz-Benito, A. García-Holgado, S.
García-Sánchez, D. Hernández-Alfageme, M. Navarro-Cáceres, and R.
Vega-Ruiz, Eds., ed Salamanca: Departamento de Informática y
Automática de la Universidad de Salamanca, 2013, pp. 55-72.
[4] F. J. García, M. J. Rodríguez, A. M. Seoane, M. Á. Conde, V.
Zangrando, and A. García, "GRIAL (GRupo de investigación en
InterAcción y eLearning), USAL," Informática Educativa
Comunicaciones, 2012.
[5] F. J. García-Peñalvo, "Docencia," in Libro blanco de la Universidad
digital 2010, J. L. Orueta and L. M. Pavón, Eds., ed: Ariel. Colección
Fundación Telefónica. Cuaderno 11, 2008, pp. 29-61.
[6] F. J. García-Peñalvo, V. Zangrando, A. García-Holgado, M. Á. Conde-
González, A. M. Seoane Pardo, M. Alier, et al., "TRAILER project
overview: Tagging, recognition and acknowledgment of informal
learning experiences," in Computers in Education (SIIE), 2012
International Symposium on, 2012, pp. 1-6.
[7] T. Hill and R. Westbrook, "SWOT analysis: it's time for a product
NT
recall," Long range planning, vol. 30, pp. 46-52, 1997.
[8] F. Buschmann, R. Meunier, H. Rohnert, P. Sommerlad, and M. Stal,
"Pattern-oriented software architecture: a system of patterns. 1996," Part
II, 2001.
I
PR
E-
PR
[9] L. Uden and E. Damiani, "The future of E-learning: E-learning
ecosystem," in Digital EcoSystems and Technologies Conference, 2007.
DEST '07. Inaugural IEEE-IES, 2007, pp. 113-117.
[10] A. García-Holgado, "Análisis de integración de soluciones basadas en
software como servicio para la implantación de ecosistemas
tecnológicos corporativos," Master’s thesis, University of Salamanca,
2012.
[11] A. García-Holgado and F. J. García-Peñalvo, "The evolution of the
technological ecosystems: an architectural proposal to enhancing
learning processes," presented at the Proceedings of the First
International Conference on Technological Ecosystem for Enhancing
Multiculturality, Salamanca, Spain, 2013.
[12] P. Quintas, P. Lefrere, and G. Jones, "Knowledge management: A
strategic agenda," Long Range Planning, vol. 30, pp. 385-391, 6// 1997.
[13] F. J. García-Peñalvo and M. Á. Conde, "Knowledge Management and
decision making based on informal learning activities in business," in
Proceedings of the 2nd Global Innovation and Knowledge Academy
(GIKA 2013)
[14] J. Esteves and J. Pastor, "An ERP lifecycle-based research agenda," in
1st International Workshop in Enterprise Management & Resource
Planning, 1999.
[15] T. A. Alspaugh, H. U. Asuncion, and W. Scacchi, "The Role of
Software Licenses in Open Architecture Ecosystems," in IWSECO@
ICSR, 2009.
[16] J. Bosch, "Architecture challenges for software ecosystems," in
Proceedings of the Fourth European Conference on Software
Architecture: Companion Volume, 2010, pp. 93-95.