1. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC Overview and Critique of Standards
Geoffrey Fox
Department of Computer Science and
CSIT (School of Computational Science and Information Technology)
400 Dirac Science Library
Tallahassee
Florida
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

2. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
Basic Goal is Good
Many agree that electronic aids to education or training and perhaps even complete web-based learning environments are of increasing importance
We have a lot of choices from academic and commercial sources
WebCT, Blackboard, Lotus Learning Space, WebMC (FSU) … (mainly interesting as authoring strategy)
WebEx, Centra, Placeware (delivery)
It is not clear as to “correct” approach and as to “best” implementation of this approach
So broad use of web-based classes is slowed as not clear if safe to “invest” in WebCT or WebEx and what is involved in converting from one format to another
So we need standards ……..
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

3. Who took up the Challenge?
Educational Environment:
Educause set up IMS – Instructional Management System with selection of companies and universities
IMS focus was changed to drop implementation work and is now “Global Learning Consortium” Inc.
Department of Defense (which has huge training needs):
ADL Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative
whose links section includes all other useful URL’s
A lot of their results come from AICC (Airline Industry CBT Committee) CMI (Computer Managed Instruction) standard
IEEE (Computing Community) set up
P1484 Learning Technology Standards Committee LTSC
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

4. Is there a basic difficulty in process?
We are trying to set standards for an area that is still in its infancy and we have essentially zero experience with sophisticated web-based learning environments and
Certainly no agreement as to either educational or computing architecture of web-based learning
Not clear if people involved in the activity understand issues and there is no very well defined academic community for many important contributions from different areas
Example: Standards assume a “Client-Server” architecture but this is not used in most modern web-based systems which are 3 or 4 tier – not 2 tier
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

5. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
What is being done?
IMS and IEEE have broad-based standard activities
ADL is more focused on promoting standards compliant course development and has DoD projects producing courses and has established centers and is sponsoring meetings as “plugfests” where people demonstrate their “standards” compliant capabilities and its interoperability
Main Co-Lab is part of IDA in Alexandria Va
Wisconsin is Academic Co-Lab with a further DoD Co-Lab in Orlando which is a Navair facility next to University of Central Florida (Interesting links to “Simulation/Gaming” community)
Level of collaboration between 3 groups not entirely clear
In 1997 I was very disappointed when ADL signed up with IMS and basically abandoned their stated goal of working with broad community
Current ADL/IMS link seems weaker than at start
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

6. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
Basic System Model
We think of web-based education as based on a set of distributed educational objects manipulated by a learning management system (LMS)
This is already a little flaky as better to think of objects and services on those objects
Further support for authoring and delivery of objects is critical and this does not seem to be addressed very well
E.g. I think they have not thought through issues coming from changing web – use of PDA’s, dynamic pages etc.
However we can usefully study/use standards understanding that they are not complete
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

7. 3-Tier Architecture for Education Portal
There are several important Object Models: COM, CORBA, Java, Web, Oracle Database ……
But it doesn’t matter what you use if you specify in XML
Object Repository
XML File System (Web Site)
Request Or
Export/Import
Information
Middle Tier “Business Logic” dissociates User and Back End
Database
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

8. Structure of a Typical 3-tier System (Portal)
Two XML Interfaces (portalML and resourceML)
IMS and ADL SCORM take a client server view and define the objects with 1 interface
ADL takes about API ’s for services but does not specify in same fashion (should also be XML)
Client(s)
Server(s)
Resources
and Services
User View
portalML
System View
ResourceML
XML Interfaces
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

9. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
LMS Model used by ADL
Learning Server
Content Server(s)
External systems:
HR, E-Commerce, ERP...
Migration
Adapter
API
Application
Browser
Server Side
Client Side
HTML+
Services or Adapter
Course
Interchange:
Structure
Format (CSF),
Metadata
Runtime
Environment:
Launch, API,
Data Model
“Learning
Management
System”
LMS
Critical Interchange Capability
Client
Server
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

10. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
SCORM and its Scope
SCORM is Sharable Courseware Object Reference Model
Broad definition of “Learning Management System” (LMS) as a suite of server-side functionalities that controls the delivery and tracking of learning content to a client-side student.
The SCORM does not specify functionality within the LMS.
Only Course Interchange, Metadata, and Runtime Environment are “in scope” for this version of SCORM.
Runtime Environment is not very useful in my opinion as very dependent on learning model – ADL is thinking of computer based instruction
Note current initiatives essentially go down to page as “smallest unit”
They do not address functionality of page (is it a Java Applet, Flash, HTML) except for possibly misguided parts of quiz standards which go into painful detail of archaic quiz structure
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

11. Areas (Object Properties) Covered
Metadata from IEEE and IMS
Roughly Properties of educational objects thought of as “documents” (author, title …)
Course Packaging from SCORM and IMS
How to form bigger units of instruction from smaller units
Called Content Packaging by IMS and Course Structure Format (CSF) by SCORM which goes in greater depth than IMS
Tests and Quizzes from IMS
Specialized CSF descriptors from SCORM (via CMI)
Such as objectives, prerequisites, completion requirements
LMS API from SCORM – I am doubtful about value
Enterprise Properties from IMS
Link to people and organization databases (rather incomplete at present but must be important as probably can agree)
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

12. 4 Components of ADL SCO Model
[3] “Raw Media”
[3a] Raw Media
Metadata
(XML
record)
SCO Course Structure Format (XML) [1]
[1b] Assignment Hierarchy
Block Root (Course)
Metadata [1e]
External
Course
Meta-data
[1a]
(XML
record)
“Block”
(Parent Node)
Metadata [1e]
Sharable Courseware Object
“Block”
(Parent Node)
Metadata [1e]
“AU”
(Assignable
Unit –
Leaf Node)
Content Metadata [2a]
(XML record)
Content (AU) [2]
Metadata [1e]
(Points to)
(Internal organization of files, objects, etc.)
Objectives [1c]
[4] Run Time Environment
[4a] Content Launch Protocol
[4b] Content API
[4c] Content data model
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

13. SCORM Course Information
GlobalProperties XML DTD structure [no notation = one element required;“?” = zero or one (optional); “+” = one or more required; “*” = zero or more required]
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

14. Example Course Structure
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

15. Block XML DTD Structure
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

16. Assignable Unit (au) XML DTD Structure
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

17. Assignable Unit (au) XML DTD Structure in more detail
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

18. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
Objectives in Detail
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

19. Some Examples of Prerequisite Syntax
Example of NOT(~) in Prerequisites
Element Identifier: A34 Requirement: ~A35
The student may enter unit A34 as long as unit A35 has not been completed (that is, the status of A35 must be Incomplete, Failed, or Not attempted). If assignable unit A35 is complete, the student may not enter unit A34.
Example of EQUAL(=) in Prerequisites
Element Identifier: A34 Requirement: A33=Passed
The student may enter unit A34 if he or she has passed unit A33.
Example of NOT EQUAL (<>) in Prerequisites
Element Identifier: A34 Requirement: A35<>Passed
The student may enter unit A34 as long as he or she has not passed A35. Notice the difference between this expression and the example for the not operator. The equivalent of ~A35 is (A35<>Passed & A35<>Completed)
Comes directly from CMI from AICC
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

20. Metadata Example from IMS/IEEE
General Category
Identifier Unique Label
Title Title(Dublin Core)
Catalogentry Description
in some catalog system
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

21. 10 Categories of Metadata
General – describes resource as a whole
Lifecycle – Describes history and current state
MetaMetaData – Information about Metadata
Technical – Technical requirements and characteristics
Educational – pedagogical information
Rights – Cost, IP
Relation – between this and other resources
Annotations
Classification such as keywords
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

22. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
IMS Enterprise Model
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

23. Three Data Objects in IMS Enterprise Model
Person – This data object contains elements describing an individual of interest to the Learning Management environment.
Group – This object contains elements describing a group of interest to the Learning Management environment.
There are many types of groups that may be shared between systems.
The most common is a Course Instance, but they may also include Training Programs, Academic Programs, Course sub-groups, clubs, etc. A group can also have any number of relationships with other groups.
Group Membership – This data object contains elements describing the membership of a person or group in a group.
Group members may be instructors, learners, content developers, members, managers, mentors, or administrators.
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

24. Extract from Person Object Specification
RecStatus Record Update Status
UserID LMS login name
Name Real Name
FN Formatted Name
Sort Name for sorting
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

25. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
Omissions I
Grade and other Performance data – IEEE LTSC was considering this 3 years ago
Interoperable Services – Chat Room to Bulletin Board, File Manipulation
There are various commodity efforts to get Instant Messenger standards such as IMPP (Instant Messenger and Presence Protocol) and
Requirements of IMS gotten from small user survey and not from analysis of packages such as Web CT WebMC etc.
Historically IMS was most interested in building a system
No analysis (I could see) of modern Internet technology, hand-held devices etc. to see range of architectures
CMI from AICC comes from the past
W3C has hierarchial DOM which could describe Content – ignored by SCORM and IMS
No agent (for tutoring) Interface
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

26. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
Omissions II
Questions/Testing IMS specification seems to have too much detail on simple syntax and no way of specifying nifty new ideas such as CAP (random person specific tests)
No attention to Mathematics and other specialized authoring interoperability issues
More generally too much specific detail and not enough attention to range of architectures and specific requirements for interoperability
However standards are very useful for doing new systems with good metadata and attention to myriad of detail
Current standards “only” go down to Web Page – currently do not address structure of this page
Standards assume learning objects are “top-level” – better to think of learning objects as a special type of information object. This changes XML design but not basic issues
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL

27. IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL
Conclusions
I believe these standards are useful both in
Specifying XML based metadata
Highlighting some features that need to be in any LMS
I am not clear if they will really get serious attention as
Specifications have omissions and architectural flaws
Involved community seems to be a private club
Vendors involved so far are not the leading ones
Suggest use standards where useful but hold off any major activity until acceptance clear
Work on understanding omissions to help them
11/18/2018
IMS ADL IEEE LTSC for ARL