October 22 CMI Harmonization Meeting
Tyde Richards
Date: Friday, October 22
Time: 8am US Pacific; 11am US Eastern; 4pm UK
Duration: 1 hour
Proposed Agenda
- Approval Agenda/Minutes last meeting
- IEEE LTSC WG11 updates
- CMI Core updates
- Focus Topic: Is it time to transition to revising 1484.11.1 in IEEE LTSC WG11?
Note: Based on the comments and interests expressed in last Friday's telecon it appeared to the convener that most people want to focus on revising the data model as expediently as possible. If true, the time has come to transition work to WG11 in the IEEE LTSC and prepare a revision draft for formal balloting. We will briefly review the IEEE standardization process so that people understand what this entails, especially the consensus-oriented balloting process. Following a discussion, we will decide about transitioning to WG11.
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: October 15 CMI Harmonization Meeting
Attending
Avron Barr
Ed Cohen
Ethan Estes
Scott Lewis
Bill McDonald
Frank Polster
Jonathan Poltrack
Tyde Richards (convener)
Chris Sawwa
Kent Weeks
Crispin Weston
Agenda
- Approval Agenda/Minutes last meeting
- IEEE LTSC WG11 updates
- CMI Core updates
- Focus Topic: Planning discussion/dependencies of ADL/AICC/IEEE LTSC/LETSI activities related to CMI harmonization and the 1484.11.1 data model revision
- Approved: Agenda/Minutes last meeting
- IEEE LTSC WG11
A meeting is being scheduled with the IEEE to discuss IP/access to the 1484 standards.
Two parties from the SC36 community representing, respectively, Japanese and Arabic CMI/SCORM adopters have agreed to follow this activity and represent requirements for international adoption.
- Core CMI Update
No change.
- Focus Topic: Planning Discussion
Several issues where discussed to determine what the participants are willing to as part of a collaborative activity.
--Should the collaboration focus on a narrow technical scope (runtime data model) or a technical scope that more fully addresses "all the pieces" (transport mechanisms, bindings, LET activity definition)?
The majority opinion was to focus narrowly on the data model.
-- What target deliverables are in scope for the collaboration (accredited standards, implementation guides, generic software such as adapters or conformance tests, community of practice deliverables)?
The majority opinion was to focus on the data model revision, which implies an accredited standard deliverable. Other deliverables, while of interest, seemed beyond what the collaboration can address at this time.
--What is the division of labor between participating organizations (ADL, AICC, IEEE LTSC, LETSI)?
Since the discussion focused on the data model revision, which is an IEEE LTSC deliverable, elaborating on organizational roles did not really seem applicable at this time. A concern was raised about a tradeoff between the complexity of engaging multiple organizations in specific roles and the momentum of actually getting something done.
-- Are there concerns about neutral branding for the deliverables for this activity (the use of the name SCORM has historically been problematic)?
No concerns at this time.
Several issues were discussed that were specific to a 1484.11.1 data model revision
-- Should the AICC/ADL notion of a Core be factored into a revision ?
It makes sense to do this if there is an AICC and ADL commitment to adopt the resulting standard. In the absence of a commitment it does not make sense.
-- Should we identify a representative set of reviewers to reflect different market segments and geographies before beginning revision?
The majority opinion seemed to be that this is not necessary. The convener, however, is contacting non-US parties who historically have been interested in CMI/SCORM adoption.
-- Should all data elements in the standard be reviewed for possible update?
The majority opinion was no. It is sufficient to address the set of changes that have already been requested.
-- Should we require multi-organization consensus from at least the major stakeholder organizations (ADL/AICC/LETSI) before making proposed changes to the standard?
No opinion at this time.
-- Should we require test implementation of proposed changes to the standard prior to balloting the standard?
No opinion at this time.