October 1 CMI Harmonization Meeting

[Tyde Richards]

The next CMI Harmonization meeting will be:

Date: Friday, October 1
Time: 8am US Pacific; 11am US Eastern; 4pm UK
Duration: 1 hour

Proposed Agenda

- IEEE LTSC WG11 issues (IP, Revision PAR for 1484.11.1 data model)
- CMI Core discussion: data model comparison (Jono Poltrack ADL)
- Infrastructure for collaboration

Please send comments on the agenda or draft minutes from last meeting (appended below) to: tyderi...@gmail.com

Dial-in:
Skype phone: +9900827049304412
Conventional phone: local number + access code 9304412
US 201-793-9022
United Kingdom 0870 0990 931

Visuals:
https://my.dimdim.com/letsi

Draft Minutes: September 24 CMI Harmonization Meeting

Attending

Avron Barr
Ed Cohen
Don Holmes
Scott Lewis
Jonathan Poltrack
Tyde Richards (convener)
Chris Sawwa
Guy Tourigny
Kent Weeks

Agenda

- IEEE LTSC WG11 issues
- Core CMI Data Model (primary discussion topic)
- Infrastructure for collaboration

- IEEE LTSC WG11

Changes to ISO-IEC fast-tracking reported at the recent SC36 plenary are not expected to appreciably delay the possible future fast-tracking the IEEE 1484.11.1 through ISO-IEC. However, the votes will now be binary up/down approve/disapprove votes and early submission of documents for review is recommended.

The IEEE SA support person for WG11 has volunteered to internally "bird dog" coordination with the necessary parties to resolve questions about the IP and access to 1484.11 standards.

After consultation with the IEEE SA, Tyde (WG11 acting chair) recommended that the IEEE 1484.11.1 XML binding of the cmi data model be re-affirmed rather than withdrawn. The standard is subject to administrative withdrawal if a 5 year re-affirmation is not initiated by October 18. The pros and cons were discussed with the outcome being that a re-affirmation ballot will be initiated.

After consultation with the IEEE SA, Tyde recommended that the IEEE update project for the IEEE 1484.11.1 data model standard be changed from an amendment to a revision. The IEEE SA recommended this change due to the number of changes anticipated and the time since the standard was last updated (5 years). The scope for the currently approved amendment was discussed and found to restrictive for some of the changes requested in received comments. The outcome is that a new project request will be submitted with a revised scope. A draft will be discussed at the next meeting.

A decision was made that WG11 should remain dormant for the time being pending clarity from the study group on whether or not the "core" concept should be addressed in the revision of the 1484.11.1 data model.

- Core CMI Data Model

We began discussion on a core CMI data model. Among the goals are reducing the number of data elements to those commonly used and enabling community of practice adaptation.

Jono from ADL has been investigating the data elements used in different versions of the data model and will give a presentation at the next meeting.

- Infrastructure for collaboration

We discussed the need for a common wiki location to support the collaboration. LETSI volunteered to support an area on the LETSI wiki which will be set up before the October 1 meeting.

[Mike Rustici]

My 2 cents on core:

-What are we trying to achieve with a core model? Is it just making the current model more light weight? If so, will we really be able to cut enough out to make a significant difference in the weight of the model? Also, what scope defines core? Who is the user whose scope should map to the core data?

In my experience, here is how I see usage

True absolute core that everybody uses:

completion status

success status

score

session/total time

Used all the time, but not necessarily structured data (everybody has the need to persist state data, but is this really part of a data model if the contents are meaningless?)

location

suspend data

launch data

Next set of useful data:

interactions

learner id and name (could use some more structure around id)

objectives (but could use some more definition)

scaled passing score

completion threshold

progress measure

Behavioral elements are useful and used in SCORM (sometimes by necessity rather than desire), but they could use some consolidation and clarification

credit

entry

exit

mode

Never used, but mostly because it isn't well implemented in SCORM:

comments

learner preferences

max time allowed

time limit action

--
---
You are subscribed to the "CMI Harmonization" group.  More information can be found on the website: https://sites.google.com/a/adlnet.gov/scorm-harmonization/home

To post to this group, send email to cmi-harm...@adlnet.gov

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
cmi-harmonizat...@adlnet.gov

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/a/adlnet.gov/group/cmi-harmonization?hl=en_US?hl=en

--
Mike Rustici
www.scorm.com
615.550.9523

[Jonathan Poltrack]

Great Comments. Thanks Mike.

Tom C and I have created a spreadsheet at:

https://sites.google.com/a/adlnet.gov/scorm-harmonization/resources

Its titled CoreCMI_AICC_SCORM_Comparison.xlsx

This XLS contains 3 worksheets:

1.) Full CMI Comparison - List of data model elements colored by
conflict severity. Also lists possible behavioral issues.

2.) AICC to SCORM - A mapping of elements from AICC to SCORM

3.) SCORM Harmonization Comments - Use profile (primarily from Mike's
last comment)

I will be presenting this at the IEEE meeting today. This is intended
to be a work in progress.
Thanks,

Jono

> > cmi-harmonizat...@adlnet.gov<cmi-harmonization%2Bunsubscribe@ad lnet.gov>

>
> > For more options, visit this group at
>

> >http://groups.google.com/a/adlnet.gov/group/cmi-harmonization?hl=en_U...
>
> --
> Mike Rusticiwww.scorm.com
> 615.550.9523