Fall 10

08

School of Computing and Information Sciences - FIU

Quota System

Group 7

Eduardo Pena

Vanessa Ramirez

Eduardo Tibau

CIS 4911 Senior Project

Coordinator: Prof. Peter J. Clarke

Mentor: Dr. Masoud Sadjadi

September 14, 2010

2

Abstract

As technology advances, new IT courses and learning methodologies arise. In Spring 2009 the IT Automation course was introduced to FIU. Sponsored by Kaseya and lectured by Dr. Masoud Sadjadi, the purpose of this course is to get students familiar with IT automation. To achieve this goal, students have access to certain online resources. These online resources are of limited capacity making it necessary to use an appointment system for their use. At the beginning the appointments were taken care by hand, this turned out to be time consuming and a hard task to maintain. Later on a scheduling system was developed to allow students to make these reservations online through Moodle. This scheduling system provides a better user experience, but it is difficult to control a fair distribution of these resources among users. With this problem in hand, our goal is to develop a system that will interact with the current scheduler, and allow the administrator to define usage policies. In this document we have analyzed the current system, and defined the user requirements at a high level. Also, we propose three alternative solutions to the problem, along with a feasibility study of these solutions. Finally, a project plan is presented including tasks, milestones, and deliverables.

3

Table of Contents1. Introduction...........................................................................................................................................................................4

1.1. Problem definition......................................................................................................................................................4

1.2. Background................................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.3. Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations.........................................................................................................5

1.4. Overview of document.............................................................................................................................................6

2. Feasibility Study................................................................................................................................................................... 7

2.1. Description of Current System...............................................................................................................................7

2.2. Purpose of New System............................................................................................................................................7

2.3. High-level Definition of User Requirements......................................................................................................8

2.4. Alternative Solutions..................................................................................................................................................8

2.4.1. Description of Alternatives..........................................................................................................................8

2.4.2. Selection Criteria............................................................................................................................................10

2.4.3. Analysis of Alternatives..............................................................................................................................11

2.5. Recommendations...................................................................................................................................................12

3. Project Plan.........................................................................................................................................................................14

3.1. Project Organization................................................................................................................................................14

3.1.1. Project Personnel Organization..................................................................................................................14

3.1.2. Hardware and Software Resources...........................................................................................................15

3.2. Identification of Tasks, Milestones and Deliverables..................................................................................16

4. Appendix.............................................................................................................................................................................. 18

4.1. Appendix A - Project schedule.............................................................................................................................18

4.2. Appendix B - Diary of Meetings...........................................................................................................................20

4.3. Appendix C – Feasibility Matrix...........................................................................................................................22

4.4. Appendix D – Cost Matrix......................................................................................................................................24

5. References...........................................................................................................................................................................26

4

1. IntroductionThis chapter provides an introduction to the document. First, on section 1.1 a clear definition of the

problem is presented. Then, on section 1.2 an overview of the background information to allow the

reader to understand more about the problem. Finally, section 1.3 defines certain words to be used

in the document, and section 1.4 provides an overview of the different chapters of the document.

1.1. Problem definition

In the IT Automation class at FIU, students are expected to develop scripts and procedures in a

lab setting. A limited number of resources are available for this course, which primarily include

mentors and virtual labs. The latter refers to different virtual environment configurations

designed for students to solve a particular IT problem. At the moment, a system is being

developed to allow students to schedule these resources. However, the system does not

provide an efficient way to manage these resources so that all the students have a fair share.

The scheduling system gives students the freedom to reserve resources for the labs at the time

that better fits with their schedule as long as they are available. However, this freedom results

in misuse of resources as seen in previous prototypes. For instance, some students do not use

the system on a regular basis and wait until deadlines to complete the required hours for the

course. An excessive demand of requests puts a lot of pressure on the system, which cannot

provide enough resources. Another case is when students schedule resources along the

semester but do not use them all. The waste of resources is also an issue that needs to be

addressed since it is an unfair practice that affects other students.

1.2. Background

The IT Automation course was first offered in Spring 2009 at FIU (Sadjadi). Sponsored by Kaseya

and lectured by Dr. Masoud Sadjadi, this course has the objective of preparing students in the

IT management and automation field. Students are expected to learn the necessary skills to

master different IT automation tools in a lab setting.

Dr. Sadjadi has been working with graduate and undergraduate students to develop a system

that would facilitate the management of resources for the IT Automation course. The

prototypes that have been developed so far are based on Web Services. Moreover, a familiar

interface is provided through Moodle (Moodle Community), which is commonly used by IT

5

students at FIU. The first prototype allowed students to schedule virtual labs only. The last

prototype allowed students to schedule the different resources available for the course. It also

gives the administrator the capability to configure settings through the same interface. The

prototype is still in development but the expected release is on Spring 2011.

1.3. Definitions, Acronyms, and Abbreviations

IT: Information Technology.

Kaseya: Company that offers IT Systems Management Software and Network Management

Software for IT Departments and Managed Service Providers.

Resources: In this particular context, this term refers only to virtual labs, mentoring, and

certificate exams.

Virtual Lab: Different virtual environment configurations designed for students to solve a

particular IT problem.

Mentoring: Time used by teacher assistants to help students.

Certificate Exams: Virtual environments specifically for graded exam sessions.

CMS: Course Management System also known as a Learning Management System (LMS) or a

Virtual Learning Environment (VLE).

Moodle (Moodle Community): An open source CMS that educators can use to create effective

online learning sites.

JavaScript: A scripting programming language most commonly used to add interactive features

to web pages.

phpScheduleIt (Korbel): A web application written in PHP developed by Nick Korbel for

resource reservation and management.

PHP: (Hypertext Preprocessor) is a popular general-purpose server side scripting language that

can be embedded into HTML to create web applications.

Web Service: A standardized way of integrating web-based applications that share business

logic, data, and processes through a programmatic interface across a network.

6

FullCalendar (Shaw, 2010): A jQuery plugin developed by Adam Shaw, which provides a full-

sized, drag & drop calendar that uses AJAX to fetch events on-the-fly for each month and is

easily configured to use your own feed format.

jQuery: JavaScript Library that simplifies HTML document traversing, event handling,

animating, and Ajax interactions for rapid web development.

Quota: Limited time the students will have in the new system to allocate resources.

1.4. Overview of document

Chapter one provides an introduction to this document and begins with a detailed definition of

the problem. After this, background information on the problem previously described is

provided. Finally, a list of definitions, acronyms, and abbreviations used across the document is

given followed by an overview of each chapter's contents.

Chapter two contains the feasibility study conducted to determine whether a feasible solution

exists for the given problem. This chapter begins with a complete description of the current

system and its deficiencies. Next, the purpose for the new system is explained in detail, followed

by a list of the requirements given by the user as part of the possible solution. After this, a list of

alternative solutions is provided along with a brief description for each of these solutions. Then,

the criteria used to evaluate the possible solutions are explained followed by the summary of

the analysis of each solution according to the mentioned criteria. To conclude this chapter, a

recommendation is given explaining why one of these solutions is more feasible than the others.

Chapter three explains how the team plans to develop the chosen solution. It explains how

personnel are organized and what role will each team member play during the development

process. After this, a list of the resources needed to develop the solution is provided. Finally a

detailed table of tasks, milestones and deliverables shows exactly what each team member will

be doing on each phase.

Finally, chapter four contains the appendices that were used to create this document. These

appendices include a project schedule, the diary of meetings, and the feasibility matrix.

7

2. Feasibility StudyThe following chapter will analyze the different possible solutions to the problem in question. First,

section 2.1 describes the current scheduling system along with its limitations and constraints. Then,

section 2.2 provides an overview of the new system and its main goals. Next, section 2.3 defines the

user requirements at a high level. Finally, section 2.4 will talk about three possible solutions to the

problem, followed by recommendations on section 2.5.

2.1. Description of Current System

Dr. Sadjadi and his research team developed the current scheduling system. This scheduling

system provides an interface through Moodle that allows students to reserve different types of

resources. The resources available at the moment include virtual labs, mentoring and certificate

exams.

The main interface of the scheduler is a JavaScript calendar, based on FullCalendar jQuery

plugin (Shaw, 2010), with all the desired scheduling functionality added to it. Students can

select for which resource they want to reserve time and schedule it on the calendar. The

calendar will show the users not only their appointments but also the availability of resources

to make the scheduling process easier.

At the moment the system doesn’t have any type of policy towards the use of resources.

Students can reserve an unlimited amount of resources, leaving other students without

available time slots. This is an unfair distribution of resources that inevitably leads to wasted

resource usage time. Furthermore, administrators don’t have access to any kind of report

about usage. Since this is the case, there is no way to prevent or penalize students with unused

allocated resources.

2.2. Purpose of New System

The purpose of the new system is to allow a fairer distribution of resources between students.

Also, the new system should give the administrator more control over the resources and their

use. The way to control these resources will be through different reports and usage policies.

Ultimately, the administrator will make sure that the students are using the resources in a fair

and efficient manner.

8

Consequently, since it will be easier to find available resources, students will have a better

experience throughout the course. They will waste less time trying to allocate the resources

they need, and will optimally have more resources available for their use.

2.3. High-level Definition of User Requirements

The high-level user requirements are the following:

1. The system shall allow the administrator to define policies about usage time, availability,

cost, and other fixed factors about each resource in a user-friendly manner.

2. The system shall provide a way to modify these policies without affecting previously

reserved time slots.

3. The system shall allow students to allocate and release resources.

4. The system shall provide students with reports about their usage of resources.

5. The system shall display the number of hours of a resource that the student can reserve.

6. The system shall allow students to request additional time on a resource (outside of their

normal quota) upon approval.

7. The system shall provide an interface with the scheduling system to check the available

quota, and the request’s compliance with the applicable policies.

2.4. Alternative Solutions

This section presents different alternative solutions for the problem stated above. Sub-section

2.4.1 contains a description of each solution and how it should be implemented. Next, sub-

section 2.4.2 presents the selection criteria on which the analysis of each of these alternatives

was based. A summary of this analysis is shown in sub-section 2.4.3.

2.4.1. Description of Alternatives

Alternative 1: PhpScheduleIt adaptation

PhpScheduleIt is a web application written in PHP developed by Nick Korbel for

reservations and resource management (Korbel). The system includes a full user log in

and registration system, user profile management, a scheduling and reservation

system, and numerous administration tools. On the administrative side phpScheduleIt

supports a fixed group of policies that can be defined for each resource. The system

administrator can also decide what resources are available for each user. In order to

9

use phpScheduleIt as a solution for the given problem, the system will be wrapped

inside a Moodle module so it can interact with the existing system's modules. The

source code will be modified to fit user requirements and discard unwanted

functionality.

Alternative 2: Fair scheduling algorithm

Modify the existing scheduling system to allow a fairer distribution of resources. The

new scheduler will handle a priority-based system, where a determined number of

minimum resources for each student will be considered high priority resources.

Additional resources acquired by students will have lower priorities. This way every

student will have a chance to use their high priority resources over the additional lower

priority resources of other students. Additionally there will be scheduling periods

where students will choose when to use their resources before the schedule is locked.

During this period other student’s high priority resources may replace some student’s

lower priority resources. The students whose resources were removed will have a

chance to reschedule their lower priority resources before the scheduling period ends.

Once the scheduling period is over students may only choose open time slots to spend

their resources until the next scheduling period begins.

Alternative 3: Quota System

A new custom-made module that will interact with existing modules of the current

system. This module will work with quota or credit types instead of handling resources

directly. Each type of resource will have a value in a given type of credit. As it most

important feature, the new module will allow the creation of user designed policies to

determine whether resources should be assigned to a student. These policies can be

applied to students individually or as a group. Additionally, system administrators will

be able to give students access to additional resources should the student need them.

2.4.2. Selection Criteria

10

This sub-section describes the criteria used to evaluate each of the solutions proposed in the

previous sub-section. The following types of feasibility were considered for this analysis:

operational, technical, schedule, economic.

Operational Feasibility

Performance

Is the solution’s throughput and response time adequate?

Information

Do end users and administrators get timely, pertinent, accurate and usefully

formatted information?

Control

Are there effective controls to protect against fraud and to guarantee

information accuracy and security?

Services

Are current services reliable? Are they flexible and expandable?

User Friendliness

Is the solution easy to use?

Requirement Compliance

Does the solution satisfy all user requirements?

Technical Feasibility

Expertise

Does the team possess the expertise required to develop the solution?

Technology

Does the team possess the tools required to develop the solution?

11

Schedule Feasibility

Preparation

How long does it take the team to learn the base system's technology?

Design and Implementation

How long does it take to design and implement the solution?

Economic Feasibility

Maintenance

How much does it cost to maintain the system after development is

complete?

2.4.3. Analysis of Alternatives

This sub-section contains a summary of the pros and cons involved with implementing each of

the proposed solutions based on the feasibility matrix. (Appendix C) The score associated with

each alternative is based on the sum of the score given to the alternative for each individual

criterion. This score given corresponds to a one to ten grading scale.

Table 1 phpScheduleIt adaptation score summary

Alternative 1: phpScheduleIt adaptation

Score Pros Cons

5.57

- Working system with

useful functionality.

- Useful statistical

information displayed.

- Fixed policies

- Hard to scale and

maintain.

- Hard to modify.

- Must understand complex

code.

12

Table 2 Fair scheduling algorithm score summary

Alternative 2: Fair scheduling algorithm

Score Pros Cons

7.49

- System designed to solve

problem.

- Moodle based application.

- Fixed policies.

- Not very scalable

- Must learn about current

system.

Table 3 Quota system web service score summary

Alternative 3: Quota system

Score Pros Cons

8.65

- System designed to solve

problem.

- Flexible policies.

Flexibility in scheduling.

- Moodle based application.

- Very scalable.

- More than one web service

required.

- Minor changes in existing

module.

Not optimal utilization of

resources.

2.5. Recommendations

The primary goal of the new system is to ensure fair distribution of existing resources among

students. Even though all proposed solutions achieve this primary goal, some are more flexible

in specific aspects than others.

The quota system web service solution provides the user with the most flexibility regarding

policy implementation for resource management compared to the other two alternatives,

which only allow the user to change parameters from a fixed set of policies. The quota system

also adapts to the current system without having to modify any of the existing code, while in

13

order to implement the other solutions existing code must be understood and altered. Keeping

the current system unchanged translates into students not having to learn how to use a brand

new system; instead, students will face the same familiar user interface with minor additions.

The team recommends the implementation of the new quota system web service, since it

satisfies all user requirements with a simple, scalable module, while maintaining a familiar user

interface, and providing the most flexible resource control solution.

14

3. Project PlanThis chapter describes the work plan for this project, hardware and software resources, tasks

and milestones for each deliverable. Section 3.1 described the project organization. In section

3.1.1 the team roles are defined for each member and deliverable. Section 3.1.2 describes the

software and hardware resources available to the team to develop this project. In section 3.2 a

breakdown of the project is detailed with every task and milestone for each deliverable.

3.1. Project Organization

This section will describe the roles and responsibilities of team members, and the resources

available for this project.

3.1.1. Project Personnel Organization

In this section the team roles are shown for each deliverable of the project.

Table 4 Deliverables

ID Deliverable

FS-PP Feasibility Study and Project Plan

RD Requirements Document

DD Design Document

FD Final Deliverable

Table 5 Team Roles

Team Member FS-PP RD DD FD

Eduardo Pena •Requirement Analyst•Technical Writer

•Requirement Analyst•Technical Writer•Minute Taker

•System Analyst Designer•Technical Writer

•Developer•Technical Writer•Minute Taker

Vanessa Ramirez •Project Manager•Technical Writer

•Project Manager•Requirement Analyst

•Project Manager•System Analyst Designer

•Project Manager•Lead Tester•Developer

15

Eduardo Tibau Requirement Analyst

Minute Taker

Requirement Analyst

Development Team Manager

Development Team Manager

Minute Taker

3.1.2. Hardware and Software Resources

This section describes the hardware and software minimum requirements for

development.

Personal computers:

Hardware Specification

Three portable computers with the following minimum specifications:

o RAM Memory: 2GB

o Hard disk space: 100GB

o Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo

o Network: 10/100 Mb/s

Software Specification

o Any operating system

o Eclipse IDE

o MS Office Suite

o AXIS2

o Apache

o PHP 5

o Java Development Kit (JDK) 1.6

o MySQL

o PostgreSQL

16

Server:

Hardware Specification

o RAM Memory: 1GB

o Hard disk space: 40GB

o Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo

o Network: 10/100 Mb/s

Software Specification

o Any operating system

o AXIS2

o Apache

o PHP 5

o Java Development Kit (JDK) 1.6

o PostgreSQL

3.2. Identification of Tasks, Milestones and Deliverables

This section describes in detail the work plan for the project including the tasks and milestones

that compose the deliverables shown in table 1. A Gantt chart was built as well to show the

project schedule (Appendix A).

Table 6 Milestones

ID Milestones DeliverableM1 Problem statement and description FS-PPM2 Feasibility study and Project Plan FS-PPM3 Final document FS-PPM4 Scope of the system, Current System problems and

limitations and Project planRD

M5 Proposed system requirements RDM6 Final Document RDM7 System methodology and design. DDM8 Detailed design DDM9 Final document DDM10 Final version of FS-PP, RD and DD FD

17

M11 Implementation of web service FDM12 Implementation of interface FDM13 System Validation FDM14 Final document and product FD

Table 7 Tasks

ID Task Milestone

T1 Problem statement M1T2 Background M1T3 Feasibility study M2T4 Project plan M2T5 Terminology and overview M3T6 Integration and revision of final document M3T7 Scope of the system M4T8 Current System problems and limitations M4T9 Project plan M4T10 Functional requirements M5T11 Analysis of system requirements M5T12 Terminology and overview M6T13 Integration and revision of final document M6T14 Design methodology M7T15 System design M7T16 Static and Dynamic model M8T17 Code Specification M8T18 Terminology and overview M9T19 Integration and revision of final document M9T20 Final version of FS-PP document M10T21 Final version of RD document M10T22 Final version of DD document M10T23 Credit Manager web service M11T24 Policy Manager web service M11T25 Credit Manager Moodle module M12T26 Policy Manager Moodle module M12T27 Policy Manager integration test M13T28 Credit Manager integration test M13T29 System integration test M13T30 User guide M14T31 Integration and revision of final document M14

18

4. Appendix

4.1. Appendix A - Project schedule

19

20

4.2. Appendix B - Diary of Meetings

Date 08/24/2010Time 16:30 – 17:30Location Dr. Sadjadi’s officeAttendees All members and Dr. SadjadiAbsenteesDiscussion Brief introduction of Eduardo P. and Eduardo T. to Dr. Sadjadi.

Description of the current issues with the scheduler, and what we need to do to improve it.

Talked about taking the project from a software engineering path.Decision Have a meeting to further discuss the problem statement on 8/26/2010.

Vanessa has to make a draft of the problem statement since she is the one with more knowledge of the current system and its problems.

Open issues None

Date 08/25/2010Time 20:00 – 21:00Location Eduardo’s houseAttendees All membersAbsenteesDiscussion Prepared the problem statement for 8/26 meeting, uploaded it to basecampDecision NoneOpen issues None

Date 08/26/2010Time 17:00 – 18:00Location Dr. Sadjadi’s officeAttendees All members and Dr. SadjadiAbsenteesDiscussion Continued the talk about the project, specifically about high-level user

requirement. Presented the problem statement to Dr. Sadjadi. Agreed to work 10 hours per week. On-campus meetings with Dr. Sadjadi

Tuesdays 17:00-18:00, and Wednesdays 14:30-17:00Decision Divide the first deliverable, and start working on it.

Vanessa needs to work on defining the milestones for the project. Everyone needs to start looking for possible solutions to the problem.

Open issues None

21

Date 08/31/2010Time 14:00 – 17:00Location ECS 212Attendees All membersAbsenteesDiscussion Searching for alternative solutions. Found phpScheduleIt

Coming up with two solutions to the problem. Option one, priority reservation system, needs to modify the existing modules in order to integrate it. Option two, quota web service system that handles credits and talks to the shopping cart, scheduler and its own administrative interface with reports.

Decision

Open issues Try to explain our own solutions to Dr. Sadjadi to get some feedback from him.

Date 08/31/2010Time 17:00 – 17:45Location Dr. Sadjadi’s officeAttendees All members and Dr. SadjadiAbsenteesDiscussion Further talk about the problem.

Revision of the problem statement. It turned out to be fine. Presentation date.

Decision Keep looking for alternatives. Select from the pool of other alternatives one which we think is the best.

Choose a presentation date on next class and notify Dr. Sadjadi about it.Open issues Try to explain our own solutions to Dr. Sadjadi to get some feedback from him.

Date 09/6/2010Time 15:00 – 22:30Location Eduardo’s houseAttendees All membersAbsenteesDiscussion Each member worked on the respective part of deliverable 1.

Decided to make phpScheduleIt one of the alternative solutions along with our two options.

Decision Integrate the various parts of the document into one single file to present it. Make the presentation for deliverable 1 Overview of document and terminology by Eduardo P. Due 9/10 Ask about cost matrix, if there won’t be any costs associated with any of the 3

alternativesOpen issues Try to explain our own solutions to Dr. Sadjadi to get some feedback from him.

22

4.3. Appendix C – Feasibility MatrixTable 8 Feasibility Matrix

Feasibility Type

Type Wt.

Criteria Criteria Wt.

Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3Observations Score Observations Score Observations Score

Operational 50% Performance 10% No web service calls involved.System has one database.

10 System contained within the same web service.System has one database.

9 System must call other web services.More than one database.

7

Information 10% Users and Administrators are informed about resource use.Graphs and other visual aids to view information.

10 GUI designed specifically for this purpose.

10 GUI designed specifically for this purpose.

10

Control 10% System manages its own database.

9 Information contained within existing system.One web service.

10 Information contained within existing system.More than one web service.

8

Services 10% System is fully developed.Hard to scale.

2 Complex large system.Hard to scale.

6 Simple separated modules.Very scalable.

10

User Friendliness

20% Too many options.Overkill of user requirements.Information saturated views.

7 GUI designed to present relevant data only.Easy access to all required functionalities.

10 GUI designed to present relevant data only.Easy access to all required functionalities.

10

Requirement Compliance

40% Fixed, limited policies. 6 Fixed, limited policies. 6 Flexible policy system.Custom made to meet user requirements.

10

Type Score 6.9 7.9 9.5

Technical 20% Expertise 70% No knowledge about PEAR databases.

6 Medium knowledge of Moodle based web applications.

8 Medium knowledge of Moodle based web applications.

8

Technology 30% No PEAR database manager.

8 All required tools installed. 10 All required tools installed. 10

Type Score 6.6 8.6 8.6

23

Schedule 20% Preparation 40% Complete implemented system unknown.

2 Current scheduling system code unknown.Time required to learn Moodle development.

5 Time required to learn Moodle development.

8

Design and Development

60% Complete implemented system unknown.

2 Rework current design.Complex algorithm design.

6 Start design from the beginning.

7

Type Score 2 5.6 7.4

Economic 10% Maintenance 100% Person in charge must know in extent system code.

4 Person in charge must know Moodle.

7 Person in charge must know Moodle.

7

Type Score 4 7 7Total Score 5.57 7.49 8.65

24

4.4. Appendix D – Cost MatrixTable 9 Personnel Costs

Alternatives Project Duration Weeks

(10 h/w)

Personnel Total Hours Total Cost ($15 per hour)

phpScheduleIt 20 3 200 $9000Fair Scheduling

Algorithm25 3 250 $11250

Quota System 15 3 150 $6750

Table 10 Risks Costs

Risk Item Probability phpScheduleIt Fair Scheduling Algorithm

Quota System

Recovery Cost

Risk Value

Recovery Cost

Risk Value

Recovery Cost

Risk Value

Risk 1: Personnel could work fewer

hours than estimated due to

sickness or personal issues.

0.3 $450 $135 $612.5 $183.75 $350 $105

Risk 2: Requirements could

change drastically which could change the system design.

0.2 $4500 $900 $6250 $1250 $3200 $640

Risk 3: Time estimations for

deliverables could not match the time

necessary to complete the

project.

0.25 $5500 $1350 $7000 $1750 $4000 $1000

Total $2385 $3183.75 $1745

25

Table 11 Software and Hardware Costs (All alternative have the same costs)

Item CostComputers $6,490 Developer Tools (Open Source) $0 Project Management Tools (Microsoft Office 2007, MS Project) $1,100 Total $7,590

Table 12 Project Costs

Alternatives Personnel Costs Hardware and Software Risk Mitigation TotalphpScheduleIt $9000 $7,590 $2385 $18.975Fair Scheduling

Algorithm$11250 $7,590 $3183.75 $22023.75

Quota System $6750 $7,590 $1745 $15780

26

5. References

Korbel, N. (n.d.). Introduction to phpScheduleIt. Retrieved 08 28, 2010, from phpScheduleIt: http://php.brickhost.com/readme.html

Moodle Community. (n.d.). About. Retrieved 08 28, 2010, from Moodle: http://moodle.org/about/

Sadjadi, M. (n.d.). it Automation Home Page. Retrieved 08 24, 2010, from S. Masoud Sadjadi's Home Page: http://users.cis.fiu.edu/~sadjadi/

Shaw, A. (2010). FullCalendar. Retrieved from http://arshaw.com/fullcalendar/