1. How to use IMS Learning Design and SCORM 2004 together OUNL
written by C. Tattersall, D. Burgos, H. Vogten, H. Martens, R. Koper and
presented by G.W. van der Vegt
Educational Technology Expertise Centre
Open University of the Netherlands
SCORM 2006 Taipei
Version 3 Final

2. Contents About us IMS-LD / SCORM 2004 similarities
IMS-LD / SCORM 2004 differences
Together, two possible integration paths
Using SCORM from within IMS-LD
This is the roadmap of this presentation. After a short introduction
I’ll start focusing on IMS-LD versus SCORM2004. After that I’ll try to
show how this article tries to bridge the ‘gap’ between the two specs.

3. About Us, the Department Otec
Educational Technology Expertise Center
Research (fundamental educational research)
4CID model
Development (product oriented research)
Products like IMS-LD & CopperCore
Currently developing products for ‘Learning Networks’
Implementation (end-user / faculty oriented)
Traditional multi-media productions
Educational Design Support for faculties
The Open University of the Netherlands is specialized in distance education.
It also participates in national and international projects and supplies
educational expertise to other Dutch universities too.
Our department OTEC (Educational Technology Expertise Center) has
three different task-groups.
Firstly fundamental educational research.
secondly Development (the group from which this article originates)
that focuses on developing products that can be used in the near
future of long-life education. The development group also participated
in the IMS-LD standard.

4. Similarities Standards for developing e-learning courses
Both use content packaging
LOM is used for metadata
Consist of a server and a client or player part
Although both specifications tend to lead a separate life there are
similarities and even benefits by combining strengths of the
specifications.
Similarities between IMS-LD and SCORM are that they are both
standards for e-learning, use IMS Content packaging and are
primarily used for web-based education.

5. Differences
SCORM 2004
reference model describing content and runtime behavior
has an API for server interaction (LMS)
simple to implement
single user
plenty platforms support it
IMS-LD
single specification for both content and its runtime interactions between users
no restrictions on actual content
no standard interface with server
more complex to implement
growing support
can model complex interactions
designed to link other specifications
Is multi-user and supports roles
Sequencing activities is a integral part of the specification.
Differences are that SCORM2004 describes single user runtime behavior whereas
IMS-LD can model complex multi-user & role interactions and even supports
properties for the collective of users in a particular role.
SCORM2004 has a API for interaction with an LMS, (in theory) freeing it
from migration problems between LMS’es. This is also needed because it already
has range of platforms to chose from. IMS-LD still has limited support and doesn't
say anything on how the player and server should communicate (although it supports a
number of property related actions in it's item model based content.
SCORM2004 is simpler to implement due to limited content – server interaction.
IMS-LD is more complex as it also supports complex multi-user calculations on the
server. It can for instance show or hide activities based on group performance.
Because of the single-user restriction SCORM it has to rely on the implementation
of the LMS for certain tasks like manually grading and supporting students wheras these
can be modelled into IMS-LD.

6. Integration paths Paths for integrating IMS-LD and SCORM2004
SCORM orchestrates and uses IMS-LD as content/resources
IMS-LD orchestrates and uses SCORM SCO's as content/resources
There are two paths to integrate IMS-LD and SCORM2004.
Depending on who’s leads we could implement SCORM compliancy
in an IMS-LD server so a LMS sees it as a SCO.
Secondly we could make an IMS-LD server act a bit like a
SCORM LMS and start an SCO as an atomic piece of content.
The path are quite different in nature even though one
would perhaps not notice it directly.
The first option exhibits the rather complex problem of
how to map individual users onto multiple roles that can
be defined in IMS-LD. A jump to a url is not enough to get
a user at the correct point (run & role) of a UOL.
Another problem is what to do with the group properties of
IMS-LD for which there is no place in a SCORM LMS.
The second option is about embedding single user content into
a multi-user design. Here we won’t run into role assignment
problems as we can instantiate a copy for each user performing
the SCO and return to the previous role assignment after it's
been completed.
The paper presented here today only describes the second case.
We’re thinking of researching the other path in a future paper.

7. Connecting users and roles
SCORM to IMS-LD and back
User #1
User #1
User #2
Role #1
User #2
User #3
User #3
Role #2
The following pictures describe the problems of transitions between single
and multi-user systems.
In case of starting with SCORM we see a number of individual students that need to be mapped onto
the roles defined within IMS-LD. Because all users are equal for the LMS it’s generally not possible
to map the users automatically onto the roles. Unwrapping roles into individual users is however easy.
User #4
User #4
SCORM2004
IMS-LD
SCORM2004

8. Connecting users and roles
IMD-LD to SCORM and back
Role #1
Role #2
User#1
User#2
User#3
User#4
IMS-LD
SCORM2004
As we’ve seen in the previous slide unwrapping a role into individual users is
easy and if we keep track of this state the regrouping is easy too as we still
Have knowledge of how it was before the unwrapping.
The problem of mapping users onto roles is off-course also present during
population of an IMS-LD run with users when it’s instantiated and is not so much related
To SCORM itself as well to it’s single user nature.

9. Using a SCO from inside IMS-LD #1
Hardcode url's to SCORM player as web resources:
The first two methods described in this article are both relatively
simple in approach.
The first option is to simple add a link to a pre-published SCO.
It has to be pre-published as one has to know the exact URL of the
SCO in order to make the link work.

10. Drawbacks #1 Two distinct servers -> single logon problems
No communication between the IMS-LD and the SCO
Url of SCO has to be known before IMS-LD can be published
Drawbacks are that if we have two different platforms (an IMS-LD Server
and a LMS) we run off-course into the usual logon problems that are related
to having user-accounts in two different systems. So there should be a
synchronizing of user accounts and course subscriptions.
No communication between the SCO and the IMS-LD it’s being used from.
The url of the SCO must be available before the IMS-LD can be finished and
published.

11. Using SCO from inside IMS-LD #2
Use single content package for both IMS-LD and
SCO's to solve url problems.
Drawbacks #2
Two servers -> single logon problems
No communication between the IMS-LD and the SCO.
Some preprocessing is needed to split and publish the CP into separate content packages for the two runtime systems.
Internal linkage of the IMS-LD and the SCO into a single content
package is another option and allows the server the package is being
published too to resolve the URL’s by preprocessing the package and
separate them into two separate packages. This solution is a more
automated version of the first solution but it requires somewhat more
intelligence in the publishing process.
As with the first option there should be a synchronizing of user accounts
and course subscriptions.
It also needs somewhat more coding in the pre-publishing area but
then automates a task that is prone to making mistakes as it frees us from
hard coding the url of the SCO into the IMS-LD content.
But there is still no communication between the SCO and the IMS-LD it’s
being used from.

12. Where to put a SCO inside IMS-LD
IMS-LD has an Item model that permits linking to file resources packed into the content package
That file may be another content package
The file may be another CP containing a SCO.
Internal linkage of the IMS-LD and the SCO into a single content
package is another option and allows the server the package is being
published too to resolve the URL’s by preprocessing the package and
separate them into two separate packages. This solution is a more
automated version of the first solution but it requires somewhat more
intelligence in the publishing process.

13. How to solve the lack of interaction problem?
Incorporate the server part of SCORM2004 into a
IMS-LD system, for both launching SCO's and SCO
data storage.
Use the packaging mechanism of option #2
Store SCO runtime data in the IMS-LD database so the UOL can read/write them too.
Make arrangements on the mutual property names and their meaning.
This could all be implement through the CopperCore CCSI (CopperCore Service Integration) dispatcher.
So how do we solve this interaction problem?
If we incorporate the server part of SCORM 2004 somehow into a IMS-LD server
(for instance CopperAuthor), it should have the ability to launch both SCO’s
and store their data.
If we implement it underneath the CCSI layer we also have the option to map SCO
properties onto IMS-LD properties so they can interact in both ways.
This option only needs making arrangements for property naming so we know
what to expect as results from a SCO. Packaging is simple done like in option
#2 where the SCORM package is packed as a resource inside the IMS-LD package.

14. CCSI
Here we see the structure of a LD server (CopperCore) and LD player (Sled).
The CCSI layer sits in between the various engines and the player. The
CCSI layer features a subscription mechanism that notifies engines of
interesting events taking place through the CCSI layer between the player
side and an engine.

15. Linking with interaction
Here we see both the publishing of a IMS-CP containing IMS-LD with a SCORM package as one
of its resources into a LD server. Interaction between the SCO and IMS-LD is done by mapping
the SCO properties onto IMS-LD properties. The SCORM API implementation could either be an
implementation of what is necessary (and is supported) or be a proxy to a LMS.

16. Questions?