| Category |
Coursework |
Subject |
Computer Science |
| University |
University of Leicester |
Module Title |
CO7214 Data Mapping to XML or JSON CW1 |
Individual Coursework 1: Data Mapping to XML or JSON
This task is your report on Groupwork 1. It does not require additional technical work, but a reflection and self-assessment on the group’s work and your role and contribution within it.
1. Process followed and your contribution:
Describe the process you followed as a group in Groupwork 1 and give details on your own contributions to any of the steps.
- Process followed:
- What steps did you follow?
- Did you iterate on the solution? where and why?
- How did you decide the solution was good enough to submit?
Your contributions can include, but are not limited to:
b. Proposing, reviewing, criticising, or commenting on a solution.
- What was your proposal?
- What did your review find?
- How did the above affect the solution you submitted as a group?
c. Producing diagrams, JSON, XML, DTD code or documentation.
- What was your task, and how did you approach it?
- What did you get right or wrong?
- What was the group’s response?
d. Managing the group work, e.g., by arranging meetings, setting and monitoring deadlines, aggregating contributions into the shared document.
- How well did the group work together?
- What management challenges did you face?
- Would you do anything differently next time?
Each of the points b.- d. can apply to several of the steps you described in a., so you can achieve full marks without necessarily contributing to each step or covering all activities b.-d. Be specific:
- Use the questions under each point to give details.
- Refer to specific parts of the group solution to support your answer.
We will consider your engagement with your groupwork
2. Design decisions
Every project must make design and technology decisions.
- Describe the decisions you had to take as a group. For any of these decisions, explain:
- How did you decide, and what was the rationale for your decision?
- Did the group agree on these decisions, or what was the argument about?
- What was your position, and how did you defend your case?
You can achieve full marks by listing two design decisions in a. and answering three questions in total for b.-d, not necessarily all three for each decision.
3. Self-evaluation
How well does your solution satisfy the given (and sometimes conflicting) requirements? Address them one by one and state briefly if, how or why you met them fully or partially, in particular:
a. Compact representation, to minimise storage and bandwidth costs
b. Readability of the data and understandability of the mappings for developers
c. Preservation, extension, or reflection of the data capacity of the given model
d. Maintainability and extensibility of your solution in case of changing or new requirements
With the benefit of hindsight and the feedback received:
e. What did you learn in the process?
f. How would you approach the problem differently?
Your group’s solution may not satisfy all of a. – d. because requirements can be conflicting. Apart from stating whether the requirements were met, the emphasis here is on justifying, for example, in c. how preservation of data capacity is ensured, or in b. why readability has not been considered so important.
Learning Outcomes
1. Be accurate and consistent with the group submission (rather than claiming things about the groupwork that are not true)
2. Specific to the group's work and the individual contribution (rather than generic statements that could apply to anyone)
3. Concrete, supported by examples (rather than abstract points)
4. Clearly stated (rather than written in vague or confusing language)
5. Non-repetitive (rather than making the same points repeatedly under different headings or repeating the GW2 specification)
6. Complete (rather than missing important points, e.g. only mentioning one design decision under 2.a)
7. Relevant to the requirements (rather than discussing unrelated issues) [for 3.a. - d.]
8. Meaningful evaluation (rather than generic statements) [for 3.e. - f.]
9. Original (rather than overlapping in contents with other submissions), especially on individual contributions, subjective assessment and lessons learned.
