Frank Farance, Farance Inc

Frank Farance, Farance Inc. frank@farance.com +1 212 486 4700
International Standards Strategies For Information Technology and Learning, Education, and Training Frank Farance, Farance Inc International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance
Overview Consensus Process Overview Distinguishing Technical Standards from Regulations, Policy, and Non-Technical Standards Stakeholder Interests and Participation Internationalization, Localization, Cultural Adaptation Integrating Distance, Distributed, Mobile, and Nomadic Technologies Related Information and Communication Technologies Activities Lessons Learned, Implementation Issues Conclusions International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Life Cycle: Development Phase
Life Cycle: Development Phase Developing Standards Source: “from scratch” or “base documents” Create “standards wording” (normative and informative), rationale for decisions Technical committee: in-person or electronic collaboration Development International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Life Cycle: Consensus Building Phase
Life Cycle: Consensus Building Phase Consensus-Building Steps Collaboration, harmonization with other organizations Public reviews as soon as possible Public comments Resolution of comments Approval stages (refinement): Working Draft Committee Draft Draft Standard Approved Standard Consensus Building Development International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Life Cycle: Maintenance Phase
Life Cycle: Maintenance Phase Consensus Building Maintenance of Standards Requests for Interpretation (RFIs) Defect Reports (DRs) and Record of Responses (RRs) Amendments (AMs) and Technical Corrigenda (TCs) Development Maintenance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Life Cycle: Review Cycle
Life Cycle: Review Cycle Review Cycle: Revise: new work item, incorporate new technology Reaffirm: no changes, stable technology Withdraw: little use, obsolete technology Typically: 5-year cycle Consensus Building Development Review Maintenance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Life Cycle: Consistency Via Accredited Process
Life Cycle: Consistency Via Accredited Process Consensus Building Development The Standards Process Accreditation affords consistent process Committees don’t reinvent wheel Choosing a “process” can take years itself Accredited process is well-tested and “off the shelf” Review Maintenance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Typical Timeline Of Standards
Typical Timeline Of Standards Summary of Standards Process Development Phase: months Consensus Phase: 9-24 months Maintenance Phase: 3-6 years Review Cycle: revise, reaffirm, or withdraw — every 5 years Typical time: from committee formed to approved standard: months Realistic schedule ==> Good results Consensus Building Development Review Maintenance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Building Stds/Specs In Several Steps — A Spectrum of Consensus-Building Methods User/Vendor/ Institutional/ Industry “Extensions” The “Standard” INDUSTRY RELEVANT EXTENSIONS Consensus Building Development Industry-Relevant, Widely-Adopted “Extensions” Review Maintenance Amendments: years Revisions: years “Extensions” Become Input To Next Revision Of Standard International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance  International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Methodology: Work Flow And Progressive Deliverables
Methodology: Work Flow And Progressive Deliverables The Steps of Building Successful Information Technology Standards/Specifications “Interpretation/maintenance is stabilized: each level is dependent on higher levels.” “Interpretation Examples: - Ambiguities in bindings are resolved by interpreting the semantics; - Ambiguities in semantics are resolved by interpreting the conceptual model.” “The work flow/steps promote (1) consensus-building, and (2) long-term stability, interpretation, maintenance of the standard/specification.” Requirements Functionality Conceptual Model “Consensus-building is incremental.” Semantics Bindings: APIs Bindings: Codings Bindings: Protocols Encodings: Calling Conventions Encodings: Data Formats Encodings: Various Communication Layers International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance  International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

A Framework for Harmonized/Consistent ... Adaptability: Long Term vs. Short Term Bindings: APIs, Codings, Protocols Encodings: Calling Conventions, Data Formats, Communication Layers Relatively Static Topic-Specific Normative Wording Topic-Specific Informative Wording Requirements Cross-Topic Codings, e.g.: XML, DNVP, ASN.1 Various Standards,e.g.: ASCII, , UTF8 Functionality Cross-Topic APIs Normative Wording e.g., Bindings in Java, C/C++, Perl, JavaScript, Tcl Cross-Topic Protocols e.g.: Presentation and Session Layers Conceptual Model Various Standards, e.g.: Transport and Network Layers Cross-Topic APIs Informative Wording Semantics Relatively Dynamic Bindings: APIs Bindings: Codings Bindings: Protocols Encodings: Calling Conventions Encodings: Data Formats Encodings: Various Communication Layers International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance  International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Codings, APIs, Protocols — All Three Are Required for Wide Area Interoperability - Std APIs may be implemented via std or proprietary Protocols - Std Protocols may be accessed by std or proprietary APIs - Both std APIs/Protocols improve wide area interoperability Semantics Bindings: APIs Bindings: Protocols - Std APIs may use std or proprietary Codings - Std Codings may be used by std or proprietary APIs - Both std APIs/Codings improve portable apps/data Harmonized standard APIs, Codings, and Protocols promote: - Application portability - Data portability - Multi-vendor, “open” solutions - Wide area, end-to-end interoperability Bindings: Codings - Std Protocols may use std or proprietary Codings - Std Codings may be exchanged via std or proprietary Protocols - Both std Protocols/Codings improve system interoperability Prioritizing The Development Of Standards for Codings, APIs, and Protocols International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance  International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Overview Consensus Process Overview Distinguishing Technical Standards from Regulations, Policy, and Non-Technical Standards Stakeholder Interests and Participation Internationalization, Localization, Cultural Adaptation Integrating Distance, Distributed, Mobile, and Nomadic Technologies Related Information and Communication Technologies Activities Lessons Learned, Implementation Issues Conclusions International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

What is a Specification?
Technical documentation Abstraction and implementation details References and supporting documents Used to create implementations Reduces business risk International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

What is a Standard? Scope: identifies boundaries Terms: special definitions Conformance: how implementations are tested and measured Normative wording: required features Informative wording: helps the reader Rationale: explains decision-making International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Standards vs. Specifications [1/5]
A standard is: A specification produced by an accredited standards development organization (SDO) Standards vs. specifications: Standards: developed by accredited organization Specifications: developed by non-accredited organization International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Non-accredited organizations, e.g.: consortia, fora, trade organizations, user groups Accreditation does not imply quality or usefulness but does imply process Accredited process is important: “Requests for Interpretation” (consistency) May include: due process, fairness International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Developed by accredited standards bodies Common features accredited standards bodies (features may vary): Open forum Due process, fairness Specification development and maintenance Membership fee structure for different organization sizes Voluntary standards vs. involuntary standards Treaty organization vs. non-treaty organization International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Standards vs. Specifications [4/5] Specifications: Developed by non-accredited organizations Attributes of non-accredited organizations: Membership: open or closed? Due process: fair conflict resolution methods? Other activities, e.g.: Specifications Reference models Conformance tests Branding Products May/may not operate like standards body International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Goals of Standards Process [1/2]
Well-defined technical specification: Consistent implementations High interoperability/compatibility Coherent functionality Describe specifications, not products Commercial viability: Allows range of “implementations” Commercial products are possible Promotes wide adoption International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Goals of Standards Process [2/2]
Wide acceptance: Many “conforming implementations” Few bugs: Consistent Requests For Interpretation (RFIs) Low number of “defect reports” International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

ISO/IEC JTC1 Information Technology
Screw Threads TC2 Fasteners SC02 Coded Character Sets SC35 User Interfaces SC22 Programming Languages & Environments SC22/WG20 Internationalization SC31 Automatic Identification and Data Capture SC17 Cards and Personal Identification SC32 Data Management and Interchange SC34 Document Description/Processing Languages SC11 Flexible Magnetic Media for Digital Data SC23 Optical Disk Cartridges SC29 Coding of Audio/Picture/Multimedia/Hypermedia SC24 Computer Graphics and Image Processing SC28 Office Equipment SC27 IT Security Techniques SC07 Software and System Engineering SC36 IT for Learning, Education, Training CAI-RG Conformity Assessment and Interoperability IIT-RG Implementing Information Technology JTC1 (Joint Technical Committee 1) Information Technology TCnnn ... ISO International Organization for Standardization IEC International Electrotechnical Commission International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 Scope [1/2]
Standardization in the field of information technologies for learning, education, and training to support individuals, groups, or organizations, and to enable interoperability and reusability of resources and tools. International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

ISO/IEC JTC1 SC36 Scope [2/2]
Excludes: The SC shall not create standards or technical reports that define educational standards, cultural conventions, learning objectives, or specific learning content. In the area of work of this new SC, standards and technical reports would not duplicate work done by other ISO or IEC TCs, SCs, or WGs with respect to their component, specialty, or domain. Instead, when appropriate, normative or informative references to other standards shall be included. Examples include documents on specialty topics such as multimedia, web content, cultural adaptation, and security. International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

SC36 Participation: 20 National Bodies
Australia (SA) [p] Austria (ON) [o] Canada (SCC) [o] China (CSBTS) [p] Czech Republic (CSNI) [o] Denmark (DS) [p] Finland (SFS) [p] France (AFNOR) [p] Germany (DIN) [p] Ireland (NSAI) [p] Italy (UNI) [p] Japan (JISC) [p] Korea (KATS) [o] Netherlands (NEN) [p] Norway (NSF) [p] Singapore (PSB) [o] Sweden (SIS) [p] Ukraine (DSTU) [p] United Kingdom (BSI) [p] United States (ANSI) [p] International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

A Roadmap Of Interoperability Points in Information Technology for Learning, Education, and Training IEEE LTSA Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Abstraction ¯Implementation Various Stakeholder/Design Perspectives Examples: Learner, Assessment, Institution, Metadata, Intelligent Tutor, Mentoring, Collaboration, Curriculum, Developer, Task International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Some Strategies In Standardization and Scope
Some Strategies In Standardization and Scope Some information technology components/features should not be standardized in JTC1/SC36, e.g., evaluation methods, delivery systems, applications Some learning technology components/features should be standardized outside JTC1/SC36, e.g., multimedia, education standards, cultural adaptation Strategy: Standardize smallest, useful, doable specification that has technically feasibility, commercial viability, and widespread adoption International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance  International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Learning Technology That Should Not Be Standardized Example: Evaluation Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Evaluation should not be standardized because: Process/methods are not well-defined or agreed upon Value-added feature of learning technology systems However ... inputs and outputs should be standardized: Behavior coding methods Learning content formats Learner information Assessment information International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance 

Learning Technology That Should Not Be Standardized Example: Delivery
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Delivery should not be standardized because: Value-added feature of learning technology systems Commercial vendors provide “implementation quality” with delivery systems However ... inputs and outputs should be standardized: Multimedia formats Learning content format Locators and launch methods Standards profiles for browsers International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance 

Learning Technology Should Be Standardized Outside SC36 Example: Multimedia Formats Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Multimedia formats should be standardized outside SC36 because: Not specific to learning technology Other committees have more expertise However ... standards “profiles” (collections) should be identified: Can point to collections of existing standards, e.g., JPEG, GIF, MPEG Don’t lock into a single format to allow varying “implementation quality” International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance 

Learning Technology Should Be Standardized Outside SC36 Example: Education Standards Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Education standards should be standardized outside SC36 because: Not technology standards Highly political process Local, national, and regional preferences ... unable to build consensus However ... education stds should build on learning technology using: Common indexes (query, content, locator) for search/retrieval Common formats for exchanging assessment/learner info Common learning content structures for prerequisites and content aggregation International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance 

Learning Technology Should Be Standardized Outside SC36 Example: Cultural Adaptation Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Cultural adaptation should be standardized outside SC36 because: Not specific to learning technology, e.g., color blindness, language preference Other committees have more expertise, e.g., ISO/IEC JTC1 SC35 Local, national, and regional preferences ... unable to build consensus However ... learning preferences can be identified independently, e.g.: Learning styles Mentoring/coaching/hinting preferences And ... SC36 should collaborate with cultural adaptation committees International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance 

Stakeholder Categories
“Isolated” stakeholders Learner-Centered, Institution-Centered, Assessment-Centered, Records, Certifications, Task Model, School-to-Work, Content-Centered, Content Developers, Metadata, Ontologies, Expert Systems, Digital Libraries, Learning Objects, Multimedia Search/Retrieval, Collaboration, Peripheral Devices, Asynchronous Learning, Multiple Role, Team Learning, Icon Conventions “Parallel” stakeholders Parallel Sessions/Same Learner Student-Teacher Multi-Tier Process Improvement: principal  teacher  student “Overlapping” stakeholders Mentoring, Coaching, Electronic Performance Support Interactive Environment, Simulation Tool-to-Tool Communication, Sequencing, Pre-Requisites, Curriculum-Centered, Experimentation, Discovery, Intelligent Tutoring Tools, Distance/Distributed/Nomadic Learning Related Industries Human Factors/User Interfaces, Data Collection/Analysis, IT Decision-Support Applications, Expert Systems/Intelligent Systems, Entertainment/Multimedia Industry, Control/Feedback Systems International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

“Isolated” LTSA Stakeholders
Isolated LTSA subsets -- little interaction with neighboring LTSA components Little overlap with other “isolated” stakeholders Relatively “simple” integration Can make use of isolated component standards Typical stakeholder examples: “Records”, “Metadata”, “Multimedia Search/Retrieval” International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Records, Certifications
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: learner records, learner info, assessment info Secondary design issues: evaluation, coach International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Learning Content Cataloging, Metadata
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: query, catalog info (metadata), locator (e.g., URLs), and associating locators with catalog info Secondary design issues: knowledge organization, learning content (presentation) International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Ontologies, Expert Systems
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: knowledge design and knowledge representation in learning resources, learning content (presentation) Secondary design issues: query, catalog info (metadata), and locator (e.g., URLs) International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Multimedia Search/Retrieval
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: delivery, multimedia, query, catalog info (metadata), locator (e.g., URLs), hardware limitations Secondary design issues: coach, learning resources, learning content format, behavior International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

“Overlapping” LTSA Stakeholders
Concerns many, most, or all LTSA components Overlaps with other stakeholders Differing, conflicting designs priorities Relatively “complex” integration Potential non-technical, political, or business obstacles to consensus and interoperability Typical stakeholder examples: “Experimentation”, “Intelligent Tutoring Tools”, “Distance Learning” International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Experimentation, Discovery
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: learner chooses direction, acquires knowledge during experimentation, learner, coach, query, catalog info (metadata) Secondary design issues: learner does self evaluation, tools and delivery support experimentation, behavior, assessment info, locator (e.g., URLs), delivery, multimedia International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Intelligent Tutoring Tools
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: learner/tutor choose direction, acquires knowledge during use of tutoring tool, learning resources may be implicit (not explicitly defined) in tutor Secondary design issues: tutor does evaluation, tools and delivery support experimentation International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Distance Learning, Distributed Learning, And Nomadic Learning
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: distributed and nomadic communication of all “flows” (behavior, performance, multimedia, etc.) Secondary design issues: processes and stores components NOTE: Take note of primary design issues (red/bold) How does this slide differ from all others? Answer: All flows are primary, everything else is secondary A technical definition of distance/distributed learning: primary design issues concern “flows”, all other LTSA components are secondary International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance 

“Parallel” LTSA Stakeholders
Integration of multiple sessions, each with differing learning experiences and interactions Synchronization of multiple sessions: starting, stopping, coaching, learner interfacing Integration, collaboration, and synchronization of feedback and coaching strategies Typical stakeholder example: “Student Teacher” International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Student Teacher Student Teacher Primary design issues: student teacher as a teacher Secondary design issues: student teacher as a learner entity International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance 

“Related Industries” LTSA Stakeholders
Other industries overlap learning technology LTSA components described in terms of other industries Related industries represent significant portions of LTSA system components Related industries only identify common areas of technology, not common purpose. Examples: Learning isn’t just entertainment Learning isn’t just control/feedback systems And so on ... Related industries have architectures different from LTSA LTSA is not a good architecture for describing generic IT decision support systems, data collection/analysis systems, user interfaces, and so on ... International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Related Industries: Human Factors/User Interfaces “The LTSA Top Half”
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: human interfaces, human inputs (behavior), systems that interpret human inputs (evaluation), machine outputs (multimedia), systems that generate machine output (delivery) Secondary design issues: responsiveness (interaction context), adaptation (learning preferences) International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Related Industries: Data Collection/Analysis “The LTSA Bottom-Right Quadrant” Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: repositories of information (learner records), information formats and their storage/retrieval (assessment info, learner info) Secondary design issues: application paradigms for accessing and processing information (coach, evaluation) International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Related Industries: IT Decision-Support Applications “The LTSA Bottom Half” Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: processing of information (coach), supporting databases (learner records, learning resources), information formats and their storage/retrieval (learning preferences, assessment info, learner info, query, catalog info, locator) Secondary design issues: front-end, back-end, second-tier, and agent processing (evaluation, delivery, learning content) International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Related Industries: Expert Systems/Intelligent Systems “The LTSA Bottom-Left Quadrant” Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: knowledge/expertise repositories (learning resources), access/usage methods (query, catalog info, locator, learning content) Secondary design issues: applications (coach, delivery) International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Related Industries: Entertainment and Multimedia “The LTSA Left Half”
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: content (learning resources, learning content), delivery stream (delivery, multimedia) Secondary design issues: content selection (query, catalog info, locator), user/viewer/subscriber (learner entity) International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Related Industries: Control/Feedback Systems “The LTSA Center”
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) Primary design issues: system (learner entity), sensor (behavior, evaluation, assessment info), controller (coach), actuator (locator, delivery, multimedia) Secondary design issues: second-order/alternative feedback (interaction context, learning preferences) International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Some Terms on Internationalization/Localization
internationalization (I18N): Agreement or interoperability independent of locale. localization (L10N): Adaptation to the needs of a locale, e.g., culture, linguistic, physical, etc., preferences. locale: A set of cultural, linguistic, or regional conventions. localized string: A localized value based on characterstring datatype. localized value: A value, of a particular datatype, that is associated with a particular set of cultural, linguistic, or regional conventions. multicultural string: A set of localized strings that are intended to represent the same meaning. multicultural value: A set of localized values, of a particular datatype, that are intended to represent the same meaning. International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Some Terms on Internationalization/Localization
Example: The locale identifier en-GB;GMT0BST;dd.mm.yyyy hh:mm might mean the following conventions apply: The language is English, specifically British English. The timezone in the winter is called GMT and is 0 hours West of UTC. The timezone in the summer is called BST. The date and time are written in the format "dd.mm.yyyy hh:mm". International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Integrating Distance, Distributed, Mobile, And Nomadic Technologies
Learner Entity Multimedia Behavior Interaction Context Delivery Evaluation Learning Preferences L o c a t o r A s s e s s m e n t Learning Content Locator Learner Info (current) (history/obj.) Catalog Info Learning Resources Coach Learner Records Learner Info Query (new) NOTE: Industry has researched this problem Global Information Infrastructure Nomadicity Roundtable White papers describe core technologies Executive Summary: Rationale: International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance 

SC36 Activities Working Groups: WG1: Vocabulary (Ukraine) WG2: Collaborative Technology (Japan) Ad Hoc Groups: Learner-Information (UK) Management and Delivery Systems (US) Other Activities: Marketing Rapporteur Group (Australia rep) Architecture (Germany) International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

SC36 Activities Approved Projects: Vocabulary Collaborative Technology (3 Projects) Simple Human Identifiers Project Proposals in Development: Management and Delivery Architecture Projects (3) Learner Information-Related Standards Expect 1-4 projects approved in next year International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

SC36/WG2 Vocabulary Current status: NP approved (SC36/N0042) NP (New Work Item Proposal) ballots resolution in progress Expect completion by Domain-specific terminology Similar to ISO/IEC 2382 multi-part “Information Technology Vocabulary” International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

SC36/WG2 Collaborative Technology
Current status: 3 projects approved NP (New Work Item Proposal) ballots resolution in progress Expect completion by Collaborative Workplace (SC36/N0043) Agent-to-Agent Communication (SC36/N0044) Learner-to-Learner Interaction (SC36/N0045) International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

SC36 Internal Liaisons [1/2]
SC2 Coded Character Sets Relevance: ISO/IEC 10646, character set attributes SC22 Programming Languages Relevance: Locale information, APIs, datatypes SC24 Computer Graphics, Image Processing SC25/WG1 Home Electronic Systems Relevance: Distribution to home computers SC27 IT Security Relevance: Encryption and other features International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

SC36 Internal Liaisons [2/2]
SC29 Coding of Audio, Picture, and Multimedia/Hypermedia Info Relevance: MPEG, audio, video, etc. formats SC32 Data Interchange Relevance: SC32/WG2: Metadata (e.g., registries, metamodel, framework for business objects) SC32/WG1: Open-EDI (e.g., ebXML) SC34 Document/Description Processing SGML/XML SC35 User Interfaces International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

SC36 External Liaisons IEEE LTSC Category A Liaison CEN/ISSS/WS/LT Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI) Category C Liaison NATO ITD (Integrated Technical Data) Being progressed International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Related Organizations
ALIC (Advanced Learning Infrastructure Consortium), URL: ARIADNE (Alliance of Remote Instructional Authoring and Distribution Networks for Europe), URL: AICC (Aviation Industry CBT [Computer-Based Training] Committee), URL: ADL (Advanced Distributed Learning), URL: IMS Global Learning Consortium, URL: International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Some Advice ... Success Attributes [1/4]
Participants: expect to be involved 2-5 years cannot expect significant effect with little participation Schedule: don’t get rushed, don’t get late expect the work will take several years New technology: be conservative break off pieces that can be standardized early Scope: stick to it! create a “charter” as a guiding document for development International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Functionality: coherence all the components of the standard need to work together completeness don’t overspecify, but provide a useful solution interoperability what interoperability is implied/mandated? usually: little interoperability => little practical usefulness testability how do you know products/services meet requirements of std? International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Consensus-Building ... all three are required: technical feasibility if it is not feasible, then no standard is possible adequate (volunteer) participation who will do the work of writing/reviewing the standard industry “will” (desire for a standards solution) if no one is demanding “I need this standard yesterday!”, then progress will be slow Conformance: need to measure it if it can’t be measured, anyone can claim conformance should have working definition as soon as possible (ASAP) a standard is not understand until it has a conformance statement International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Target audience: implementers implements are the primary readers of the standard commercial systems and users users will depend upon a reliable standard Quality: fix bugs now just like software: too expensive to fix later Process: have faith in standards process — it works! good knowledge of standards process can help International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Some Advice ... Failure Attributes [1/2]
Incorporate new/untried technology Why waste committee time? need to strike a balance Ignore commercial interests Who will implement the standard? pay attention to implementation issues Ignore public comments Who will buy standardized products? don’t be afraid of public comments Creeping featurism The schedule killer! makes projects buggy and late! International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Some Advice ... Failure Attributes [2/2]
Poor time estimates Progress is made over quarters, not weeks expect 2-5 years to completion ... this is normal! Leave bugs to later Expensive to fix later, like software public reviews can help discover bugs early implementations can help discover bugs Weak tests of conformance Standard-conforming, but lacks interoperability false sense of interoperability ... bad, bad, bad! Too much implementation-defined behavior anyone can conform, yet no one interoperates International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Some Advice ... Forming New Committees
Be sure of commitment to Working Groups (WGs) and Scope WG infant mortality  poor management Consider commercial implications Find liaisons, don’t “reinvent the wheel” Be patient, use realistic timeline Consumers expect much from standards  “quality” over “schedule” within reason International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Conclusions [1/3] Standards participation is long-term commitment, but has high value Collaboration and liaising help reduce duplicated efforts Good technical standards take a while to “bake”: months International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Conclusions [2/3] Good technical work: clear scope, “do-able”, support by vendors and users, well-defined conformance tests Organizations don’t actually compete: each has a role, scope, and purpose Consortia are good for technology development and the formal standards process is good for consensus-building, but not vice versa International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Conclusions [3/3] Knowledge of the standards process can be very helpful for internal projects: Specification development and consensus-building techniques are widely useful Quality is recognized at the end with few defect reports and consistent spec interpretation Standards process is a “best practice” to develop high quality specs with 5-10 year technical horizon International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance International Standards Strategies for ITLET, ©2001 F. Farance

Frank Farance, Farance Inc

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Frank Farance, Farance Inc"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback

Log in

Auth with social network:

Frank Farance, Farance Inc

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: "Frank Farance, Farance Inc"— Presentation transcript:

Similar presentations

About project

Feedback