Topic Title: Update and IMS position on SALTIS Content Packaging work Topic Summary: Some good work for future reference but divergent from the immediate IMS direction Created On: 08/27/2010 11:43 AM Status: Post and Reply
08/27/2010 11:43 AM
IMS has been supporting some work in the English Schools segment sponsored by BECTA and led by Crispin Weston of SALTIS over the last year. It is essentially a profile of IMS Content Packaging version rabel 1.2 that responds to some desires to support a few of the more Posts: 98 advanced features available in Content packaging that were purposely Joined: left out of Common Cartridge v1 in order to facilitate a higher 10/25/2008 assurance of interoperability. This work will soon be circulated privately to the SALTIS community, but will eventually be made available to the public via a pending agreement between IMS and BECTA.
Without further explanation I wanted to publish IMS's official position on this work here for the benefit of those in the English community while reviewing and for others to consider when the work is eventually made public - and most importantly to make sure that the IMS membership is not confused by this work:
IMS Official Statement Regarding the CONTENT PACKAGE PROFILE FOR LEARNING PLATFORMS IN ENGLAND:
"IMS is pleased to see a set of interesting ideas for the potential profiling of IMS Content Packaging reflected in the English Content Interoperability Specification (for the schools segment), and IMS was pleased to provide technical support to the project.
Currently the worldwide IMS community is focused on adoption of IMS Common Cartridge, Learning Tools Interoperability, and Learning Information Services specifications across a wide variety of learning platforms. IMS Common Cartridge is a body of work that reflects the dominantly successful online learning scenarios in education and has been endorsed by a majority of learning management system suppliers and educational publishers - including From 1 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 many participating in the English schools segment. While the English work contains ideas that may be of future interest to IMS members for incorporation into Common Cartridge, as the English schools profile work stands today it would be considered divergent from Common Cartridge and not in the best interest of the IMS members' goals. If currently implemented, it would distract from the goal of convergence. The goals of the IMS members are to achieve ubiquitous adoption of the Common Cartridge baseline and build from there. The profile for the English school sector work as proposed is both more complex than Common Cartridge and yet does not provide basic features that are already in wide use - such as question and test interoperability - that are part of Common Cartridge.
IMS is concerned that adoption of the profile for the English school sector will essentially create a divide between the rest of the world and England and leave the English school sector work substantially behind in some core areas. Our recommendation to the English school community would be to adopt Common Cartridge at this time to achieve both the simplicity and higher levels of functionality that Common Cartridge provides - as well as the appeal that Common Cartridge has to end-users. The work provided in the English Content Interoperability specification can then be used to guide the evolution of Common Cartridge in the future, once ubiquitous adoption of the Common Cartridge baseline is achieved. IMS looks forward to working with the English community to achieve these goals. BECTA has agreed in principle to help facilitate conversations among IMS and the English schools community to encourage a productive relationship moving forward."
For those that have not seen the positive respond to Common Cartridge from teachers in Europe - you can view the video here (IMS did not produce this video and did not conduct the study/workshop upon which it is based).
Update - see my reply to this post for a response to the email from Crispin to the SALTIS group in distributing the documents. Apparently Crispin has some misunderstanding of IMS's position.
Rob Abel Chief Executive, IMS Global Learning Consortium
Edited: 09/04/2010 at 07:00 AM by rabel
09/02/2010 07:43 AM
From 2 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 Today there was an email posted by Crispin Weston to the SALTIS list. Since I cannot post to that list, I will respond to it here. I will copy it in line and respond in line. rabel Posts: 98 Before doing so, let me make it clear that these clarifications below Joined: could have easily been gotten by Crispin himself or the "Project 10/25/2008 Board" - either by contacting me directly or discussing with Colin Smythe of IMS who has been on contract to the project. So, why the Project Board chose to speculate on these important matters instead of asking IMS for clarification is strange to say the least. I'll also add that for many years now "experts" have been speculating on what is needed in terms of things like content packaging and other learning technology standards. But, the proof is in what suppliers will actually provide and what users actually find useful. The recommendations that IMS has made to the English schools segment is based purely on very intensive experience now with our 150+ member organizations worldwide - not based on a small survey of a few interested parties.
Here is Crispin's email with my responses in CAPS at the appropriate places (and, this is an open public forum - so, if anyone wishes to ask questions here I will be happy to answer them):
From: Crispin Weston
Dear All,
I have just sent you the technical documents which form the principal outputs of the Becta Content Packaging project.
While in principle I support the documents, in the current circumstances it is not the substance of the documents that matters most but the IMS statement which accompanies them and the conditions that this statement implies. IMS IS SIMPLY MAKING A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF OUR 150+ MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS AROUND THE WORLD SO THAT THE ENGLISH SCHOOLS COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS OUR DIRECTION. WE THOUGHT IT IMPORTANT TO DO SO BECAUSE OTHERWISE OUR SUPPORT OF THE TECHNICAL WORK ON THE PROJECT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PERCEIVED AS AN ENDORSEMENT OF THE APPROACH FROM A MARKET DEVELOPMENT PERSPECTIVE - AND WE DO NOT ENDORSE From 3 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 THE APPROACH CHOSEN BY CRISPIN. WE SEE SOME GOOD IDEAS IN IT THAT COULD BE PURSUED AS AN ADD ON TO WHAT WE ARE ALREADY DOING. THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THESE WILL BE ACCEPTED - BUT WE THINK THEY SHOULD BE GIVEN FULL CONSIDERATION.
Having discussed the statement yesterday and in the absence of any guidance from Becta, I and my colleagues on the Project Board are agreed in interpreting the statement to mean that IMS does not intend to authorise anyone to implement the Becta profile because it is seen as conflicting with IMS' own packaging specification, Common Cartridge. AGAIN, WHY NOT SIMPLY ASK IMS FOR CLARIFICATION? ANYONE THAT READS THE IMS STATEMENT WILL NOTE THAT IT IS ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF THE MARKET AND NOT ABOUT AUTHORIZATION OF ANYTHING. IN FACT, IMS AND BECTA HAVE ALREADY AGREED ON THE PRINCIPLES OF HOW THE THE PROFILE CAN BE DISTRIBUTED AND IMPLEMENTED WITH IMS'S SUPPORT. SO, SUPPORT OF THE PROFILE IS CERTAINLY ONE OPTION. IMS IS SIMPLY RECOMMENDING, IN FULL HONESTY, THAT THERE IS A BETTER APPROACH TO GETTING WHERE THE WORK INTENDS TO GO - AND THAT IS TO BUILD FROM THE WIDELY SUPPORTED COMMON CARTRIDGE SPECIFICATION. PLEASE ALSO NOTE THAT THE ENGLISH PROFILE IS ALSO BASED ON IMS CONTENT PACKAGING, AS IS COMMON CARTRIDGE, AS IS SCORM. IMS IS VERY WELL POSITIONED TO RECOMMEND THE BEST PATH FOR THESE WORKS TO COME TOGETHER FOR THE NEEDS OF THE SCHOOL SEGMENT.
This leaves the UK community with an interesting decision to make. NOT REALLY. IMS WILL SUPPORT WHATEVER DIRECTION IS CHOSEN. THIS IS A FALSE DECISION SET UP BY CRISPIN'S STRANGE INTERPRETATION OF OUR RECOMMENDATION.
1. IMS argues that the UK industry should adopt Common Cartridge, which they claim is achieving global momentum and which in a future version they suggest may address some or all of the specific requirements raised by the Becta project. IMS WOULD SERIOUSLY QUESTION WHETHER A FEW SURVEY PARTICIPANTS IN ENGLAND ON THIS PROJECT CORRECTLY REPRESENTED THE WIDER MARKET AND/OR WHETHER THE SURVEY DATA WAS INTERPRETED CORRECTLY. WE'VE SEEN THIS MANY TIMES BEFORE. ANY EDUCATOR WILL TELL YOU THEY WANT LEARNING OBJECTS IN THEORY. HOWEVER, THE MARKETPLACE IS A LONG WAY AWAY FROM BEING From 4 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 ABLE TO IMPLEMENT IT - EITHER FROM THE EDUCATOR OR SUPPLIER PERSPECTIVE. THIS IS REALITY THAT WASN'T CAPTURED IN THE SURVEYS FOR THE PROJECT. IMS HAS FOUND IN WORKING WITH INDUSTRY AND EDUCATORS THAT COMMON CARTRIDGE HAS THE RIGHT MIX OF SIMPLICITY AND USEFULNESS. AND, COMMON CARTRIDGE AND LTI ARE ENABLING THE REAL WORLD OF WEB-BASED CONTENT. OUR SUGGESTION IS TO START WITH THIS AND BUILD FROM IT. AFTER ALL, IF THERE IS NOT ENOUGH INTEREST FROM EDUCATORS AND SUPPLIERS TO INVEST 20% OF THE EFFORT TO GET 80% OF THE BENEFIT, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THE WIDE MARKET WILL INVEST 80% EFFORT TO GET AN INCREMENTAL 20% GAIN? ESSENTIALLY, WHAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY THE ENGLISH SCHOOLS PROFILE ARE BELLS AND WHISTLES THAT CAN GET ADDED ONTO A CORE - COMMON CARTRIDGE - ONCE IT IS IN PLACE. ON THE OTHER HAND, IF YOU IMPLEMENT THE ENGLISH SCHOOLS RECOMMENDATION FIRST, WELL, YOU WILL FIND THAT IT EXPECTS A LEVEL OF SOPHISTICATION THAT IS TOO HIGH FOR WIDE IMPLEMENTATION AND YET MISSES SOME VERY BASIC MAIN STREAM ISSUES - LIKE ASSESSMENT AND DISCUSSION FORUMS. SO, TO IMS THE CORRECT PLACE TO START IS VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD. AND, IT'S NOT BASED ON SPECULATION - IT'S BASED ON REALITY OF WHAT WE HAVE FOUND THE MARKET WILL SUPPORT. NOTE THAT NEW YORK CITY DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION HAS RECENTLY REQUIRED IMS COMMON CARTRIDGE AND BASIC LTI CONFORMANCE FOR THE MAJOR ILEARNNYC PROCUREMENT, AS JUST ONE EXAMPLE SUPPORTING THIS.
2. The only viable alternative to the wholesale adoption of Common Cartridge is to proceed on a basis which does not rely on any IMS specifications, none of which can be profiled without explicit IMS permission. While this second option may appear to represent a radical departure from current practice, I believe that it can be realised relatively painlessly and with very considerable long-term benefit to the UK industry. AGAIN, THE "PERMISSIONS" HAVE ALREADY BEEN WORKED OUT WITH BECTA - THIS IS NOT AN ISSUE. IMS IS JUST MAKING AN HONEST ASSESSMENT THAT WE HOPE WILL BENEFIT THE ENGLISH SCHOOLS COMMUNITY. IMS IS WILLING TO SUPPORT WHATEVER DECISION TAKES HOLD. WE NEED TO DISCUSS HOW TO BEST PROVIDE THIS SUPPORT WITH THE BROADER ENGLISH SCHOOLS COMMUNITY - NOT JUST THE FEW INVOLVED IN SALTIS.
From 5 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 As the person who conducted the survey on which the Becta project was based, I must tell you that Common Cartridge is not technically capable of meeting the most pressing requirements of the UK industry. It broadly represents a simplification of IMS Content Packaging, which itself has significant technical limitations, having developed in a world in which digital resources needed to be physically circulated on CD-ROMs. Neither specification makes effective provision for the flexible re-combination of content or for runtime data interoperability, which together form the technical basis of the UK community's most pressing requirements. Learning Tools Interoperability (LTI), the IMS extension to Common Cartridge that is designed to support web- services, has been slow to emerge and its early versions offer very limited functionality. New global forums are emerging (see my update of 25th August) which will support a family of standards unencumbered by restrictive licenses. These alternative standards will be better suited to the modern internet, more responsive to the community's emerging requirements, and more closely aligned with the UK community's SCORM and SIF inheritance. FIRSTLY, CONTENT PACKAGING VERSION 1.2 WAS DEVELOPED WELL AFTER THE CD ROM ERA. IT IS USED IN COMMON CARTRIDGE AND WAS DEVELOPED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ADL FOR A FUTURE VERSION OF SCORM. COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD ARE ADOPTING IT AS A NATIONAL STANDARD - AND ISO/IEC IS ADOPTING IT AS AN INTERNATIONAL STANDARD. I'M NOT SURE WHY THE NEED TO MISREPRESENT THE CONTENT PACKAGING STANDARD. AND, OF COURSE, THERE ARE NO SUCH RESTRICTIVE LICENSES - ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS A FABRICATION. IMS AND BECTA ARE PARTNERS ON THIS PROJECT - AND IMS HAS PARTNERED WITH ORGANIZATIONS AND COUNTRIES AROUND THE WORLD. I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY BECTA THAT THEY HAVE EXAMINED OUR LICENSES AND POLICIES AND HAVE FOUND NO ISSUES WITH THEM. SO, THE EMAIL FROM CRISPIN RAISES A SET OF FICTITIOUS ISSUES AND ONE CAN ONLY ASK WHY?
I WOULD RAISE A POINT HERE THAT THE ENGLISH SCHOOLS COMMUNITY SHOULD SERIOUSLY CONSIDER. BECTA CHOSE TO WORK WITH IMS ON THIS IMPORTANT WORK IN ORDER TO LEVERAGE OUR VAST BASE AND EXPERIENCE. CRISPIN HAS BEEN ENCOURAGED BY BECTA TO WORK WITH IMS AT ALL STAGES AND IMS HAS REACHED OUT AT MANY POINTS INCLUDING OFFERING TO FACILITATE WORK IN IMS AND SO FORTH. BUT, THE RESULTING WORK CLAIMS TO NEED TO SEPARATE FROM From 6 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 IMS NOT ON TECHNICAL GROUNDS, BUT ON SOME FICTITIOUS CLAIM ABOUT RESTRICTIVE LICENSES. SO, ONE CAN ONLY WONDER WHERE THESE CLAIMS ARE COMONG FROM AND WHY. IMS CAN EASILY SUPPORT ONE- OFF REGIONAL INITIATIVES - THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM FOR IMS. THE QUESTION IS IF THAT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ENGLAND SCHOOLS AND INDUSTRY? THERE HAS BEEN MILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF INVESTMENT IN IMS CONTENT PACKAGING AND NOW COMMON CARTRIDGE. WHAT GLOBAL BASE OF WORK WILL UK SCHOOLS BE ABLE TO LEVERAGE NEXT TIME AROUND IF IT BREAKS OFF FROM THIS SUCCESSFUL WORK?
Personally, I have no hesitation whatsoever in recommending to SALTIS members this second course. Whether or not you agree with this recommendation, what is clear from the outcome of the Becta project is that there is now no middle way. ON THE CONTRARY - I THINK THE IMS RECOMMENDATION IS THE OBVIOUS MIDDLE WAY - LEVERAGE ALL THE INVESTMENT AND SUCCESS IN COMMON CARTRIDGE AND ADD IN YOUR ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS IN COOPERATION WITH OTHERS AS OPPOSED TO ON YOUR OWN. VERY STRAIGHTFORWARD AND MAXIMUM RETURN ON INVESTMENT.
At a time when government policy in this area is still fluid, the SALTIS meeting on Monday will provide an opportunity for the UK industry and other key stakeholders to steer this important collective decision. If you have not yet made a reservation, there are still some places left (go to http://www.saltis.org/next_meeting.html and follow the link for registration)
In the meantime, if you have any views or questions, please feel free to email me personally, ring me on the number below, or post to the general SALTIS list at [email protected].
I hope I will see you on Monday. I WAS TOLD THAT IMS MANAGEMENT SHOULD NOT ATTEND AT THIS STAGE. THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE MADE OUR VOICES HEARD HERE IN THIS PUBLIC FORUM - AND I AM VERY HAPPY TO ENGAGE HERE (BUT PLEASE REMEMBER THAT MONDAY IS A HOLIDAY IN THE U.S.) I HOPE TO VISIT ENGLAND BEFORE THE YEAR IS OUT AND DISCUSS ALL OF THIS FACE TO FACE WITH INTERESTED PARTIES - ESPECIALLY HOW IMS CAN From 7 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 SUPPORT WHATEVER DIRECTION THE ENGLISH SCHOOLS SEGMENT CHOOSES. THE IMS RECOMMENDATION IS JUST THAT - A RECOMMENDATION - AND OTHERS SHOULD MAKE THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AS WELL. I LOOK FORWARD TO A VIGOROUS DEBATE WITHOUT BEING SIDETRACKED BY THE NON-ISSUES AND FALSE DECISIONS THAT CRISPIN RAISES IN THIS EMAIL. CONTENT PACKAGING IS THE MOST WIDELY USED LEARNING TECHNOLOGY SPECIFICATION IN THE WORLD.
Kind regards, Crispin. COMMENTS IN CAPS ARE RESPONSES FROM ROB ABEL - CEO OF IMS.
Crispin Weston Chairman of SALTIS
Edited: 09/02/2010 at 07:20 PM by rabel
09/02/2010 10:33 AM
The SALTIS communique makes the following assertion/claim - that IMS Common Cartridge specification does not make "... effective provision for the flexible re-combination of content..." WarwickBailey Posts: 2 This assertion needs to be substantiated by SALTIS as it is variance Joined: with (1) stated CC design goals, (2) current implementations of IMS 12/12/2009 CC and (3) feedback from teachers who have used CC implementations.
(1) For the design goals around the requirement to support flexible re- combination of content, see:
http://www.aspect-project.org/...0is%20not%20SCORM.pdf
(2) For current implementations, please review (at least):
Moodle 2.0 Icodeon CC Platform Desire 2 Learn LMS
all of which support flexible re-combination of content (because that is the design intent for Common Cartridge). From 8 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 (3) For testimonials from teachers who have used Common Cartridge implementations and reported high levels of satisfaction exactly *because* they could use flexible re-combination of content, see:
http://blogs.educationau.edu.a...s-perspectives/
Perhaps there is some further comments/nuances about flexible re-use of content that need to be added to the SALTIS communique that would qualify the assertion about content resuse.
But as stated, the assertion/claim appears as a mis-representation.
If further comments and substatiations are available, then Rob Abel's recommendation of folding these requirements into an evolving Common Cartridge specification seems like a reasonable way forward.
Warwick Bailey Director, Icodeon Ltd, UK
Edited: 09/03/2010 at 09:26 AM by WarwickBailey
09/03/2010 07:22 AM
Rob Wrote: "For those that have not seen the positive respond to Common Cartridge from teachers in Europe - you can view the video here David_Massart http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qAvwteOOCwE (IMS did not Posts: 12 produce this video and did not conduct the study/workshop upon Joined: which it is based)." 03/02/2009 I would certainly encourage all those interested in the current discussion to look further at the work that has been done in the ASPECT project.
ASPECT is a 30-month Best Practice Network supported by the European Commission's eContentplus Programme that involves 22 partners from 15 countries, including 9 Ministries of Education (MoE), four commercial content developers and leading technology providers. For the first time, experts from all international standardisation bodies and consortia active in e-learning (CEN/ISSS, IEEE, ISO, IMS, ADL) are working together in order to improve the adoption of learning technology standards and specifications in schools. From 9 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 http://aspect-project.org/
ASPECT was particularly set up to address a perceived 'disconnect' between those promoting standards and specifications related to educational content and those policy makers and schools trying to implement them. A key part of the project, therefore, has been to have 40 schools in four countries working with standards like SCORM and Common Cartridge. The initial results from this work can be viewed on the ASPECT web site and includes interviews with teachers who attended ASPECT workshops and summer schools.
A key part of the Lisbon workshop in May 2010 focused on how ASPECT teachers were able to work with content that uses different content packaging standards. Generally, ASPECT teachers reacted to SCORM resources in much the same way that they treated unpackaged content; for example, they did not see much difference between having a SCORM resource and a PowerPoint presentation. While they saw that a SCORM package could include more than one resource, they did not use it any differently than a PowerPoint; both types of content were integrated into a Virtual Learning Environment (VLE) as a single, unmodifiable entity.
In comparison, the teachers were very enthusiastic about Common Cartridge content packaging. After importing a CC package into Moodle, the teachers could remove parts that they did not need, edit the content and change the order of different resources. Many teachers requested instructions on how to adapt Moodle to use Common Cartridge packages and some teachers expressed an interest in using Common Cartridge to package their own content in order to share it with other teachers.
Agueda Gras-Velazquez from European Schoolnet who coordinated the school pilots commented:
"Before the Lisbon workshop, I had anticipated that some teachers might be enthusiastic about Common Cartridge. However, while I thought teachers would appreciate the possibility of importing a cartridge into Moodle and then moving and/or changing some parts of the resource, I was unprepared for the high level of positive reaction that we witnessed."
http://aspect-project.org/node/84
The activity of the teachers in three workshops has produced a significant quantity of data that is now being processed. The national From 10 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 reports and the complete ASPECT validation report are expected at the end of November and December 2010 respectively.
Becta is aware of the work that has been done in ASPECT and I hope the project's independent and practical implementation of SCORM and Common Cartridge with teachers can help inform the UK discussion.
A final thought is that running a small pilot involving UK schools actually using Common Cartridge content might not be a bad idea. We have a very diverse group of standards' experts in ASPECT. Looking at practical implementations of an emerging standard like Common Cartridge and listening to what end users have to say has been a very good way of having a constructive debate on what represents the best way forward for schools in Europe.
David Massart ASPECT Project Manager
------David Massart European Schoolnet (EUN) http://europeanschoolnet.org
09/03/2010 07:30 AM
Warwick,
The URL of Jerry's blog is: David_Massart Posts: 12 http://blogs.educationau.edu.a...teachers-perspectives/ Joined: 03/02/2009 ------David Massart European Schoolnet (EUN) http://europeanschoolnet.org
09/03/2010 10:01 AM
Rob,
Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to your post. CrispinWeston Posts: 7 First, I should stress that this project was a collaborative venture - Joined: where IMS had a strong voice throughout in the form of your Chief 07/22/2009 Architect, Colin Smythe. The membership of the project team was deliberately designed to include the various important perspectives in From 11 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 this standards field, and, while there had been disagreements along the way, the team had made great progress in agreeing commonly constituted outputs. At the final hour, however, IMS have distanced themselves from the outputs. Under our obligations to SALTIS members and the Department of Education Standards Board, we are obliged to report this in order that industry stakeholders can understand and act upon the developments. I should also stress that we remain committed to finding a mutually beneficial way forward for UK schools and we recommend our technical profile as a foundation from which to progress. Common Cartridge does not meet several of the requirements set out by industry stakeholders in our consultation (which has been formally approved by the Department of Education Standards Board and by Becta) and therefore cannot be recommended to SALTIS members.
Responses to particular points that you raise follow.
As a partner of SALTIS, you can post to the SALTIS list, as you have done in the past Rob, by sending mail to [email protected].
Naturally we consulted with Colin Smythe, who is part of the project board and who confirmed our initial interpretation of the IMS statement accompanying the documents sent to SALTIS members.
However, if this interpretation was wrong, it will be easy for you to use this list to provide the necessary clarification by stating clearly that, as soon as it is approved by the UK community, anyone will be free to implement the profile.
I have no difficulty with IMS making statements and recommendations and engaging in an honest and open debate on the issues. But as I understand the situation, IMS is restricting the From 12 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 implementation of this profile. That is not "simply" giving advice, that is imposing the IMS position on a community which takes a different view to you.
The SALTIS community regards assessment as its very top priority - but our overwhelming consensus is that assessment is not best delivered through scripted multiple choice questions (the main fare delivered by Common Cartridge/QTI) but by custom activities delivered remotely on separate websites or applications, reporting assessment data back to the management system as required. This is the model supported by the SCORM/AICC runtime.
As for discussion forums, even though I tried hard, I could not find any learning content publishers who were interested in creating scripted discussion topics for distribution - the format provided by Common Cartridge. That is not to say that SALTIS is not interested in these features of Common Cartridge - you will see from my video (link below) that I list QTI as an important next step. It is just that from the publishers' perspective, they currently represent a low priority.
I do not claim that the license to use IMS specifications "as is" is restrictive. The restriction applies to the right to modify a specification, for example by creating a profile. Standards do not stand still and rarely suit all circumstances - so this ability to modify and profile is important. In the case of IMS specifications, it can only be done with IMS permission.
Even this would not be a major problem if the IMS veto were exercised with a light touch: transparently, disinterestedly, and as permissively as possible. The problem arises when the veto is used to block legitimate, community-led developments of which IMS disapproves.
< BECTA CHOSE TO WORK WITH IMS... YET, THERE HAS SEEMED TO BE A "HIDDEN" OBJECTIVE FROM EARLY ON FOR CRISPIN TO CREATE CAUSE TO "BREAKAWAY" FROM From 13 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 IMS AND START A NEW INITIATIVE - FIRST IN LETSI AND NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE PERHAPS SIFA OR UK SIFA>
Nothing has been hidden - you seem to have a very good idea of my views and my activities over many years - largely because I have told you about them myself whenever I have met you or other IMS staff.
It was Becta that specified SCORM in the course of its public procurement of LMSs in 2006/7 (a procurement of which, as it happened, I was strongly critical). LETSI, which is a natural forum for people who want to extend SCORM to support creative, social and game-based pedagogies, is now formally collaborating with other organisations with a stake in the CMI data model (ADL, AICC and IEEE).
Since 2006, it is Becta that has also been specifying the use of SIF for the circulation of administrative data in UK K-12. In the early days, I was again an opponent, arguing since 2002-3 for IMS Enterprise and continuing to argue that SIFA should not develop alternative formats to IMS QTI for assessments.
So you are wrong to portray me as partisan or anti-IMS. But there are good reasons for the UK industry to seek continuity with its existing investments, which are in SCORM and SIF; not in Common Cartridge, QTI or LIS.
Where there are arguments for managed migration and change, I would be the first to make them. At the moment, however, the UK industry's top requirements are for learning services which focus on re- mixing content and tracking student performance. IMS specifications do not appear to be strong in either respect. If you think I am missing something, then I am always open to a reasoned, evidence-based discussion.
< THE PERMISSIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN WORKED OUT WITH BECTA>
< I HAVE BEEN TOLD BY BECTA THAT THEY HAVE EXAMINED OUR LICENSES AND POLICIES AND HAVE FOUND NO ISSUES WITH THEM>
The project agreement, specifies that this profile will not go forwards unless it can demonstrate "sufficient stakeholder acceptance". The project agreement specifies that this necessary degree of stakeholder acceptance will be measured by formal votes to be held in SALTIS.
From 14 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 I do not know what agreements you may have made with Becta - but this is work which is being done on behalf of the whole UK industry, represented within the project by SALTIS.
In the meantime, as the annually elected Chairman of SALTIS, I am bound to give members my honest advice to the best of my ability.
< IMS AND BECTA ARE PARTNERS ON THIS PROJECT>
As far as the project PID is concerned, IMS as an organisation is not mentioned.
< IT HAS BECOME OBVIOUS DURING THE COURSE OF THE PROJECT THAT A FEW ACTORS THINK IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ENGLAND SCHOOLS TO GO IT ALONE FROM THE REST OF THE WORLD>
The aim of this project has been to provide a consistent packaging format which brought convergence between many different content types, based on globally recognised specifications.
I spend a lot of my time dealing with different international bodies, particularly in the US, including ADL, AICC, IEEE, LETSI and SIFA. We have long heard from IMS that LTI is the preferred way of running SCORM content - but as SCORM content cannot be handled without handling CMI runtime data, it seems strange to me that IMS not to be represented at the important summit to be held in Virginia next week to discuss the developments of this standard.
<[technical recommendations were] based on a tiny survey of a few interested parties>
Clearly the respondents to our survey were interested parties - that is why they were interviewed.
A total of 25 content publishers and LMS suppliers were given detailed interviews by myself, either by telephone or face-to-face, according to an interview script previously agreed with the Becta project board. Further interviews with end-user representatives were conducted by EdICTs (an independent educational consultancy), which also provided independent quality control for my half of the survey. The results were circulated and discussed amongst SALTIS participants. We conducted various outreach activities to encourage both positive and negative feedback from the wider community (e.g. see the video summary of the requirements at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...ture=player_embedded#) with From 15 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 EdICTs providing an independent summary of participants' reactions. Special efforts were made to explore and describe all "contrary opinions". All requirements documents were then submitted to a formal vote of the 109 SALTIS members and 17 partners (who gave them over 90% approval), after which the documents, accompanied by the EdICTs assessment, were submitted to a Board of the UK Department of Education for final approval.
Perhaps you would like to clarify which aspects of this process you regard as insufficiently rigorous?
+++
I hope, Rob, that these detailed responses have cleared up the more important of the points that you have raised.
But after all the detailed argument, the only point that really matters is whether, when it has been approved by the UK community, IMS will or will not authorise the general publication and free implementation of the profile document which has been developed with, as you yourself say, the apparent backing of IMS.
If the answer to that question is that you will give unequivocal authorisation, then I will be the first to admit that we have misunderstood your position and will work for a constructive relationship with IMS in the future.
If you cannot give such an unequivocal answer, then I will continue to stand by the position outlined in my previous email to SALTIS participants.
09/03/2010 10:31 AM
Dear Warwick,
Of course I am happy to clarify. What I mean by CC not making CrispinWeston "effective provision for the flexible re-combination of content" is Posts: 7 principally that it makes no provision for any kind of sequencing. Joined: 07/22/2009 I have often heard it said at IMS conferences that sequencing is a mistaken requirement. But in the UK survey (methodology described in my reply to Rob), sequencing was listed as the second highest priority of all. Many publishers thought that, without sequencing, there was really no point in having an LMS/VLE at all.
I know that the IMS argument is that LMSs can sequence in From 16 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 proprietary ways. This might work for corporate training or perhaps in HE, where a course is devised for a single application; but in schools (K-12) teachers need to create courses which are not just for deployment in a single LMS. Local Education Authorities are keen to spread good practice by encouraging teachers to share their lessons, while perhaps even more important is the requirement for a teacher to take their courses with them when they move to a different school with a different LMS.
One Head Teacher said to us something along the following lines: "when I used to employ a new teacher, I not only got the teacher but also all the teaching aids they had developed in their previous job - and those programmes of study were often almost as valuable as the teacher. Now, all the digital materials are left behind on the previous school's LMS". Rights management is also important here of course - but what is certain is that no teacher-developed aggregation (course/lesson/work-plan etc.) will be transferrable without interoperable means of aggregation and sequencing. And the only means of aggregation provided by CC is a hierarchical list, which doesn't take you very far in defining how the materials are to be deployed.
Of course Common Cartridge can be used to distribute a bunch of static resources which can then be used however you like - embedded within the school website, displayed on the whiteboard, printed out on your T-shirt. And if you have rights to create derivative works, you can edit any HTML you can get your hands on. But you would have exactly the same freedom to do what you like with these resources even if they were just copied onto a USB stick - this benefit has nothing to do with the standard itself.
I am well aware of both the references you cite. I have also tracked the ASPECT programme but have not yet seen much cross-over between this programme and the issues which are raised by learning technology providers in the UK.
The ASPECT summer school gathered 40 teachers from Belgium, Lithuania, Romania and Portugal and, after giving them some instruction and a couple of hours of playing around with Moodle, a selection of teachers are videoed saying how much they like Common Cartridge. Great marketing exercise, but hardly what you would call research. Is there a written report on the exercise available?
The main fallacy of the exercise seems to me to be in thinking that it is teachers that are the consumers of LET standards - it is industry and other software developers that consume standards; teachers then From 17 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 consume the products that those people develop. The teachers in Lisbon were not using the standards directly, they were using particular tools which have implemented the standards more or less well - and all that I learnt from the ASPECT video is that the Moodle implementation of SCORM sounds as if it has some serious flaws.
The claim that SCORM packages can only be treated as a single block (which was clearly made to all those Romanian school teachers) is untrue - the whole point of the eponymous Shareable Content Object (SCO) is that is meant to be reusable.
I agree that in certain types of SCORM package, there may be difficulties in achieving that reusability. These problems have mainly came about at the interface between the runtime (the facility that enables e.g. tracking of performance) and IMS Simple Sequencing. Common Cartridge finesses the problem by removing both sets of functionality. What we are trying to do is to *solve* the problem, keeping the runtime and at the same time allowing for the development of new types of sequencing.
Ingo Dahn's paper, which I discussed with him in January, uncritically copies an account of the difference between SCORM and CC which is given by IMS, claiming that SCORM is for CBT (boo) and CC is for blended learning (hooray). The issue of blended learning is much more complicated that this. It depends partly on whether we are talking about the use of static resources which (as I suggest above) make no assumptions and can therefore be used however you like; or whether we are talking about application-driven activities. In the later case, I should have thought that the reporting to the LMS of student performance data (which is supported by SCORM and AICC but by neither Common Cartridge nor Basic LTI) is an essential part of blended learning. How else is the teacher to know whether students have completed their assignments, have mastered their materials, and are ready to progress to their next (maybe off-computer) activity?
My approach to all these issues is that we need to work for convergence between different specifications and different standards bodies and not to imagine that there is a single specification, or a single specifications body, that is going to deliver everything and teachers need. I am all for using Common Cartridge for the things that Common Cartridge does best - and I am probably rather keener than most of my members to see QTI more generally used. But I am against Common Cartridge imposing its structure on everyone else, blocking specifications that address other people's requirements, or judging whether those requirements are legitimate or not.
From 18 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 Crispin.
09/03/2010 11:44 AM
Hi Crispin,
Thanks for engaging here. rabel Posts: 98 Colin is not available for comment right now, and only he can speak to Joined: some of your statements about what he might have said or done. My 10/25/2008 understanding from Colin is that he objected as much as he felt was productive without jeopardizing the project schedule. He made it clear that Common Cartridge is the preferred route from the IMS perspective and as such, he made sure that the features you are requesting could be added to Common Cartridge. You will note that I also chimed in when some of the initial survey results came in. The survey results did not represent reality in the market.
But, let me be crystal clear: IMS has agreed in writing with BECTA that this work can be freely distributed and implemented under BECTA copyright. BECTA needs to still send back a formal agreement for final signature. The only requirements are that the profile must be go through the IMS profiling process - which means getting the profile instantiated and registered on the IMS public registry. This is so we can develop conformance testing for it.
Now, the agreement here is between BECTA and IMS. BECTA and its assigns are expected to work with IMS on improving this work and supporting it on an ongoing basis. That of course needs to be worked out. I'll be frank - IMS does not view SALTIS as representing fully the English schools community. We view SALTIS as primarily you, Crispin Weston and perhaps your organization, Alpha Learning. We know there are lots of organizations on the mailing list. That does not impress us. We are not even sure SALTIS is a legal entity. From our perspective you seem to have largely appointed yourself in this role. So, IMS is in no way making an agreement here with SALTIS. In order to serve the English schools community fully we need to set up a more representative group to help evolve this work going forward.
So, the net-net here is that the English schools community - who have contributed very little to IMS work over the years - will benefit from many years and millions of dollars of investment in Content Packaging. And, unequivocally anyone can begin implementing this profile now or tomorrow. As far as distribution of the documents goes - well, to distribute outside the project you need to wait for BECTA to From 19 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 mark the documents - but you will find no restrictions there. IMS's role will be to support the conformance and evolve it through the community structure we set up with BECTA's help. IMS expects to continue a productive relationship with the English schools segment to do this. However, SALTIS is in no way a proxy for IMS, nor the sole or even primary representative of the English schools segment.
I'm looking forward to coming to England soon to work on setting up the appropriate support for this work from IMS going forward. Will Ellis has agreed to help facilitate this.
The bottomline is that the IMS recommendation has been consistent throughout the project and still holds. Going with Common Cartridge to start will allow the English schools community to reap the benefit of all the work we have done. Why go off on a divergent route when there is so much support for Common Cartridge? Within the UK Schools community you have commitment from Blackboard, Moodle, Fronter, and Icodeon already. It's Learning is also joining into IMS now. And look at the reports from the European Union ASPECT project. The features you are requesting can be viewed as an evolution to Common Cartridge. Simpler is better. Start there. It is a lot of work to put in place standards and enough conformance testing to get to repeatable interoperability. For the leaders of your project to choose a different approach, well, one needs to ask if you are willing to make the millions of dollars of investment to get to a new viable standard on your own? I think it's unlikely. Let's be realistic here. The IMS recommendation gives the English schools segment the chance to reap the benefit of a large investment and to now engage in the work more fully going forward in a collaborative way across borders. Your approach does not.
Best regards, Rob Abel
Edited: 09/04/2010 at 06:27 AM by rabel
09/03/2010 01:00 PM
Hi Crispin,
To me your argument makes the case for the IMS Common Cartridge rabel approach. Tell me, do you think that right now there is more R&D Posts: 98 being invested in coming up with an effective interoperability Joined: approach for sequencing than when all the investments were being 10/25/2008 made in developing and rolling out IMS Simple Sequencing or IMS Learning Design? The answer is that a lot less is being invested in this From 20 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 area right now. Why? Because it has been tried in the market and found that it is very difficult to get effective interoperability at a reasonable cost. Both Simple Sequencing and Learning Design are valuable pieces of work that have been beneficial and will evolve. But the market told us something from these experiences.
So, perhaps you will come up with a better approach to sequencing. Great. Well, the first test is to implement that approach in a real platform or two, get it in the hands of teachers, and show that it is indeed what you hope. The first step is NOT to design it into YET ANOTHER new interoperability specification that is dictated to vendors or educators.
Common Cartridge allows for this very common sense approach to evolve in the marketplace. Say for instance a Common Cartridge is ingested by Blackboard (or pick your favorite platform). If teachers are asking Blackboard for sequencing they will implement it. Thus, the teachers will remix the CC content into Bb's sequencing engine. The resulting information will not be captured in the CC export. But, the teacher's are certainly getting the value of sequencing. Most markets look at innovations like that and then decide if they should create standards to capture the interoperability points. Trying to design the interoperability before the functionality is even available in the market is an interesting paper exercise, but very unlikely to succeed in practice.
Now, Common Cartridge has the ability to map on top of it Simple Sequencing, Learning Design, or Crispin wizbang sequencing. But, there is an even easier alternative. In fact, you could go into business tomorrow with your Crispin wizzbang sequencing engine that was launchable through Basic LTI and took the Common Cartridge from Blackboard and let the teachers do sequencing. If you are so convinced the market wants this, why aren't you building this product? The IMS standards mean it would work with ANY LMS. Completely interoperable! So, you can meet the market need today. And, assuming that the original Common Cartridge and the Crispin wizbang sequencing format can be exported from the Crispin wizbang sequencing tool into one at another school, your headmaster's issue of portability is completely solved. If after the great success of your wizbang product you want to propose an 'export' that captures the sequencing as a standard, please do so!
We are tired of "standards experts" telling us we need another standard. We may in fact need another one. But let's see the market responding with opportunity and innovation first and drive from there. Let's see some proof that the market indeed wants what you say it From 21 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 wants. And, it is critical for success of standards in our segment to remember that if we want solid interoperability, we need to resist the urge to create specifications that are our vision of what a learning management system should be. Rather we need to capture the common features of what learning management systems are in reality. We think Common Cartridge was a breakthrough for our segment from that perspective. Yes, there can still be specification/standards projects on more advanced designs/visions - but they should not be expected to result in much interoperability until they are tested and further evolved. However, I don't think that is what BECTA had in mind with the profile you just came up with.
-Rob Abel
Edited: 09/04/2010 at 06:57 AM by rabel
09/03/2010 01:45 PM
Thank you Crispin.
The main thrust of what Rob Abel seems to be saying is that, of WarwickBailey course, Common Cartridge does not do all we would want - but it is a Posts: 2 strongly interoperable baseline from which different communities can Joined: build on top of. 12/12/2009 And it is supported by advanced profiling and testing tools than enable this creative building from the base .
For SALTIS to recommend not to build from that baseline, but for some other profile of Content Packaging appears to me a duplication of effort/resource.
Is there a comment/response to this point? Thank you.
09/03/2010 02:38 PM
Crispin,
I am shocked, disappointed but not surprised by your series of colinsmythe responses and the manner in which they have distorted and failed to Posts: 87 provide the full context of the Becta Profile work. Unfortunately this Joined: now forces me to discuss/reveal aspects of the work that I had 03/09/2009 considered confidential to the Project team.
From 22 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 Firstly, I have advocated and recommended the use of Common Cartridge (CC) as the starting point since day one of the project. This has been met by a total refusal, by you and you alone, to discuss/consider CC on the grounds that you have not heard anyone ask for CC. Clearly, everyone must be asking for Content Packaging (CP) instead, otherwise why else would we be profiling that work from IMS.
But of course people do not ask for CP, so they would not ask for CC either. Instead they want what we know as interoperability.
Next we come to your continual claim that CC does not support the identified requirements. This is true but there are several important caveats:
1) No packaging specification does support the full set of requirements. Indeed, my stated expectation was always that a combination would be required and that even then some further new specification work would be required. This was a statement made during the tendering process i.e. even before the set of requirements had been gathered;
2) Despite what you say and claim, the set of requirements are woeful. I say this because: (a) They are seriously incomplete. For example, key requirements were missed even though they were essential to the project participants themselves; (b) Several were a functional specification of how you personally wanted the form of solution. Your seriously flawed aggregation model being one that created much discontent with the other Project team members. All of these proposed functional solutions were your personal work and had no external consensus;
3) I, IMS and Becta were clear that one of the key outputs of the work would be recommendations to IMS about what needed to be added to CC to increase support for the Becta requirements. I have already formally logged some of those requirements with IMS. There was NEVER the intention to impose CC as is. I did make many attempts to get CC used as the starting point but this was always because I believe it is the ONLY sensible STARTING point. This belief is rooted in the thousands of person hours that IMS staff, IMS Members and many vendors have expended in developing and deploying CC solutions. It is NOT just a Colin Smythe whim.
So why did I/the rest of the team accept the requirements. Well, I expressed serious reservations to the rest of the technical team. From 23 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 However, in the spirit of making progress it was considered best to accept them provided that they would not be held as absolutes. You agreed to this flexibility at a face-to-face meeting. This was a major mistake by the rest of us. You have continually cited these 'requirements' as definitive.
You have repeatedly refused to act in a co-operarive manner. Indeed the current technical specification was ready for SALTIS in March. That meeting was cancelled, at I think one week's notice, because you could not support parts of the docs even though you had previously agreed to their circulation (IMS had also approved such circulation). You then demanded changes to achieve a personal agenda. The project Team agreed to work through your issues by permitting a series of additional personal perspective docs.
Even now, you are personally advocating that parts of the agreed work be removed; in particular the optional BasicLTI support. I have advocated that the work should be seen as a first step and that we listen to the feedback from SALTIS and make amendments appropriately; hence my proposal that SALTIS should get early sight of the work. You on the other hand appear to want SALTIS to endorse your opinion.
At our Project team of call on Wednesday 1st September I was greeted by the situation that the Project Team wished to challenge the agreed statement by IMS/Becta. My position was clear. I stated that only Rob A. and Will Ellis had the authority to make/agree any changes and that I made no contribution to that agreement. The proposed new agreement removed ALL reference to CC.
I was then asked did I think IMS would agree to such changes. I clearly said not. I also made it clear that I would be advocating at the SALTIS meeting that CC should be the starting point. When further pushed about my personal support for the Profile I made it clear that I could NOT now support it. The further attempt to undermine the reference to CC and having seen the proposed recommendations to SALTIS by you meant that the Profile, in my mind, has NO credibility. When asked about whether IMS would support a non-CC approach I made it clear it would not. Given my role in IMS it would be inconsistent to tell the Project team one thing and then to recommend another to IMS.
Furthermore, the original tender response was in Feb 2009. We are now in Sept 2010. CC was released in Oct 2008 and BasicLTI in May 2010. The level of proven vendor commitment to CC and BasicLTI is considerable. The World has moved on and is still moving on. It is From 24 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 highly unlikely that the Becta Profile will be ready for vendor implementation until the end of 2010 (because you are insisting on further work and changes). Despite the resistance I have managed to ensure that the work is closely aligned with CC. I now advocate that the Profile be rewritten with explicit reference and usage of CC, particularly in light that you are trying to remove any reference to CC and BasicLTI. We should also move to CCv1.0 and 1.1 functionality (1.1. has several new features added explicitly to support school needs e.g. Lesson Plans).
I have NO doubt, that the refusal to work with CC and its many capabilities will have serious negative implications for UK Schools.
Colin S.
------Colin Smythe IMS GLC Chief Architect
09/03/2010 05:35 PM
I'm disappointed that Crispin has such a dismissive/hostile view of the great deal of effort that teachers, Ministries of Education, standards' experts and content developers have made in the ASPECT project over David_Massart the past couple of years to even handedly explore a complex set of Posts: 12 issues. Joined: 03/02/2009 As I indicated in my earlier post, we will publish the national reports on school validations in November and the complete ASPECT validation report in December. Members of the ASPECT team would also be very happy to visit the UK and discuss our work with any interested stakeholders if someone would like to extend an invitation to do so.
------David Massart European Schoolnet (EUN) http://europeanschoolnet.org
Statistics
876 users are registered to the IMS GLC Public Forums and Resources forum From 25 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1 From 26 5 September 2010 www.imsglobal.org/community/forum/messageview.cfm?catid=92&threadid=477&startpage=1