Learning Objects Metadata IEEE P Learning Technology Standards Committee London, UK March 16, 2000 Chair: Wayne Hodgins

Agenda 1. Call to order 2. Minutes of last meeting approved online 3. Review & approve agenda 4. Old business - WD4 ballot resolution 5. New business - Multiple Project Proposals (if decided to split PAR) - Interoperability presentation: Frank F Next meetings: - next LTSC LOM meetings June, 2000 Montreal, Quebec, Canada 6. Adjournment, wed. March 16, 2000

IEEE Standards Development Process Idea for Standard Develop & Approve PAR Ballot Draft Standard Develop Draft Standard Organize Working Group Approve Draft Standard LOM is HERE Publish Approved Standard

LOM History Original sources: ARIADNE CEdMA LALO IMS LOMG Dublin core All integrated into original LOM base document

Standards Draft Writing Process Write Scope & Purpose See Related Stds. & Pubs Revise, Revise, Revise Fill in Outline Draft Outline Finalize Document LOM is HERE

Objectives this meeting: Ballot resolution:  Achieve maximum consensus  Review of comments received  Turn “no’s” to YES, maintaining all YES Finalize WD for submission to SEC & IEEE LOM Balloting Group Schedule & preparation for IEEE balloting  Standards documentation style, guidelines, and plan to proceed with transition to draft standard

Agenda LOM WD4 ballot resolution overview. Multiple project proposal as way to resolve multiple ballot issues. Schedule for remaining work, draft standard,etc. Update of draft standard process. Interoperability presentation

Overview & Status update: Critical to stay on schedule and complete! Glossary harmonization completed v4 Approved as New Working Draft  28 qualified voters  3 abstained  8 Non response (new rules discount these)  = 20 total participating in voting (71%)  17 YES (= 100 % or unanimous approval of WD4)  2 nd question, Vote for forwarding WD4 to SEC was 9 Yes, 8 No, 1 Abstain, however there were 8 no responses so using the policy in effect at the time, counting non responses as NO votes, this is considered to be 9/25 vote and hence defeated. HOWEVER, the objective is maximum consensus!  Thus working on further ballot resolution before submitting to SEC

Outstanding issues: PAR not being met Insufficient conformance statements

Review from Ballotting: V4.1 updated with resolved issues Summary of remaining issues

PROPOSAL #1: Divide the current LOM PAR into a series of individual Projects (PARs)  For example only, this might result in: P LOM Data Schema P x set of LOM instance bindings (eg: 11404, XML DTD, SQL - DDL) P y LOM Protocol and API (eg: Querey protocol)

Rationale: Standardize the smallest useful, doable, LOM specification that has technical feasibility, commercial viability and widespread adoption. Resolve a large number of ballot concerns raised. Make more progress sooner Flexible model useful in future Improved specification and standard

Proposal #2: Submit a PAR for the P LOM Data Schema.  Technical Editor: Erik Duval

Proposal #3: Submit one or more PAR for P LOM binding standards.  XML DTD  ISO  SQL – DDL  ???? Nominate a Technical Editor & champion for each PAR

Proposal #4: Submit one or more PAR for P LOM API & Protocol standards.  Query  Store  ???? Nominate a Technical Editor & champion for each PAR

Interoperability: Presentation by Frank Farance

Next Steps: Form new PAR groups Develop & submit PARs for approval Continue to resolve ballot issues Ballot new WD5 Submit final Working Drafts to SEC and IEEE LOM Balloting Group process

Thank You!! Questions or Comments?