Minutes
of AICC Meeting, Miami, Florida; Jan. 31-Feb. 4, 2005
Monday, January 31 (AICC E-Learning Symposium)
Session 1: Flash/LMS Communication Using AICC Standards:
Neil Cramer, NWA
Neil discussed the use of AICC standards and the HACP
protocol for implementing Flash course content in a
Learning Management System. Flash function calls and
communication methods and results will be covered.
Demonstrations and sample code will be included.
Session 2: Learn How To Get Your Product "AICC
Certified”: Bill McDonald, AICC
Want to get your LMS, Content, or Authoring tool AICC
certified? Want to be able to verify if a product is AICC
compliant yourself ? What does it really mean to be AICC
certified? Learn all this and more from "the
source" !
Bill McDonald, AICC Test Lab Chair, will demonstrate how
to test your content and your LMS for compliance to
AICC/CMI Guidelines (HACP protocol and more).
Installation and operation of the AICC test suite will be
demonstrated and important details of the AICC
certification testing process will be explained. Time
permitting, even more examples will be given of how to
develop Macromedia Flash content that will pass AICC
certification tests.CMI Working Group/Independent Test
Lab: Bill McDonald, Alteon Training (Boeing Commercial
Airplanes)
Session 3: Sorting out Standards: Robby Robson, Chair of
the IEEE Learning Technology Standards Committee
Specifications and standards play an important role in
e-learning. First, they greatly reduce the amount of
customization and interpretation needed to run content
and implement training systems. Second, they create a
framework that determines what functionality one can
expect from e-learning technology and what challenges
need to be overcome. This presentation will look at
e-learning standards from these perspectives. It will map
out the standards have been developed by the e-learning
world and explain what problems they solve. It will also
look at some efforts on the radar screen and what they
mean for training systems.
Session 4: Specification for Offline CMI Communication:
Jack Hyde, AICC & Shirkant Pattathil , Harbinger
Systems
Jack and Shirkant presented an overview of the latest
AICC standard for Offline CMI Communication with
practical implementation details.
AICC Executive Committee Meeting
There was a brief AICC Executive Committee meeting
following the regular meeting. The areas discussed were:
Financials: Current financials were not available due to
the absence of Scott Bergstrom. Scott had said that the
financials were holding steady so Bernard review the
financial information from the last meeting.
Meetings: The Executive Committee agreed on the following
future meeting dates:
Helsinki, Finland: June 27-July 1, 2005 hosted by FinnAir
Washington, DC, Sept 26-Sept 30, 2005 hosted by the FAA
and Plateau
San Diego, CA or Long Beach, CA, Jan 30 – Feb. 3,
2006 hosted by Macromedia or Boeing/Alteon
Moscow, Russia, June 26-June 30, 2006 hosted by Aeroflot
Vancouver, BC, Sept. 11 – Sept. 15, 2006 hosted by
Pelesys
Executive Committee: A few members of the Executive
Committee have changed companies and are no longer on the
Executive Committee. The group discussed if the missing
members should be replaced. It was decided that since new
elections will occur next January, AICC would wait until
that time to fill the vacant seats.
AICC Web Site Web Service Provider: At the last meeting
while reviewing the AICC budget, some executive committee
members requested that AICC look for a lower cost web
service provider. No new provider was identified. At this
meeting, Mike Sharp and Tom King said they would provide
service provider information to Bill McDonald who will
determine if changing providers is more advantageous to
AICC.
Communications: The current AICC Communication Chairman
has been ill. After some discussion, the executive
committee determined it would be best to select a
Communication Chairman from a Software Vendor marketing
department. Executive Committee members will provide
names of possible candidate. The communication chair
position also needs a list of task to perform monthly or
quarterly, e.g., publish the AICC meetings in industry
publications. Subcommittee members are provide a strawman
list of these tasks.
WATS Participation: WATS is approaching. Mike Sharp said
that we should give a presentation on AICC at the
conference. Mike Sharp, Bill McDonald, Jim Grant, Ed
Cohen, and Kris Rockwell will be attending the
conference. Ed and Kris volunteered to put together a
presentation for the symposium. Mike Sharp said that Mike
Smith from Halldale would be in Miami this week and
wanted to me with him to discuss AICC topics in the
Halldate periodical.
Tuesday,
February 1, 2005
Welcome from Boeing: James Grant, Bill McDonalad, Yvonne
Johnson, Alteon/Traning, Boeing
Jim, Bill, and Yvonne gave a brief overview of the Boeing
Company training components and described their
corresponding components.
ADL SCORM -AICC CMI Convergence Update
Tom King reviewed the results of the ADL SCORM-AICC
Convergence meeting including issues discussed, action
items, and timelines. The group is focusing on the
creation of a white paper defining the differences
between AICC and SCORM and the definition of a new
transport protocol to replace HACP with the goal to be a
potential convergence point with SCORM.
Chairman’s Report: Bernard Bouyt, AICC Chariman
Bernard Bouyt, AICC chairman welcomed the group and
reviewed AICC Executive Committee Meeting as described
above
Reusable Object Working Group: Bill Shook, Boeing and
Metadata Subcommittee: Bernard Bouyt, Chairman
Metadata White Paper
Bernard reviewed the current release of the meta-data
white paper and described the topics to be discussed for
the remainder of the Metadata working group.
ISO/IEC SC36 Report
Jack Hyde gave a report on the ISO/IEC SC36 WG4 and WG1.
This information was a repeat of the report given in
Thailand. The next ISO meeting will be in March 2005.
Jack discussed the WG4 (what it is)., metadata features
not in LOM (Change management, collections, conditionals)
the LOM survey. WG4f working on 2 draft standards:
Metadata for Learning Resources (Framework and Data
Model), called MLR1 and MLR2. First drafts due in March,
2005.
Jack discussed the concepts outlined in the documents:
Life Cycle Management, Collections, and Presence Values
(Conditionals). Jack showed where this information can be
found on the SC36 websitge (www.JTC1SC36.org). Jack
summarized the documents that can be found on the
website.
AI - Jack will provide documents to Bill to post on the
AICC website – the RO Working Group Spreadsheet
Vocabulary Working Paper and Jack’s final version of
the paper which will be presented at the next ISO meeting
Bernard reviewed the documents that will be used during
the working group: IEEE LOM, RO working group
Instructional Properties, Properties Spreadsheet for
comment.
AI – Anne provide to Bill the latest set of RO
working group documents to post in the working documents
section of the AICC website.
AI – Bernard will make structure a yes instead of no
in his LOM paper. Structure describes metadata is about a
collection.
Robby discussed that you may want to separate the 2
concepts, one is a resource aggregation (structure and
relationships of a course, etc) and the collection. Need
to know if when you retrieve something it is atomic,
linear, collection, and a lesson (which has the resource
aggregation and its component parts or content package
behind it). Robby said the Learnitivity Model matches our
AICC Aggregation Model closely.
Ed recommended that we look at document management
systems for guidance on effectivity and applicability.
Applicability is was version 747-200 and effectivity is
for what customer. Neil said effectivity is time related.
Everyone agreed with Neil. Revision is what version of
the content.
AI- Define Effectivity and Applicability. RO working
group will agree to definitions of Effectivity and
Applicability and present at the next meeting. Make
recommends where they go in the structure.
AI – Define the different classification groupings.
Each will have a purpose, taxon path, source, taxon, id.
Decide if in Aircraft list as a single list or a tree.
RO Working Group
After lunch, Bill discussed the current and future tasks
of the AICC RO Working Group, working group members, and
status. Bill reviewed the LOM element definitions and the
corresponding AICC element name and definition. Mike
requested that Typical Leaning Time definition state
“approximate or estimated time it takes to master
this learning object”.
Bill reviewed the elements agreed upon by the RO Working
Group Metadata Elements and their definitions. The group
was asked to fill out their opinions those elements they
feel this should be instructional property metadata
elements. It was stressed that none of these elements are
currently required elements; that will be a future task
for the working group.
AI – Bill’s group may want to include the
concepts of mobile learning (via cell phone or
blackberry) for the vocabulary for Instructional Context.
AI – Consider correlation between instructional
feedback levels and interactivity levels. Can have a
highly interactive simulation that provides limited
instructional feedback. Consider in vocabulary for
interactivity types if we do not include Instructional
Feedback Levels as a metadata element.
AI - RO working group will review the results of the
instructional technology property definitions and
finialize the ones to keep. Next steps are to finalize
definitions, define vocabularies, integrate new elements
into the AICC profile of the LOM, publish a white paper,
and review best practices.
eLearning Compliance Manager (eLCMan): Anita Kilgore, Two
Brilliant, Inc
Anita noticed a need for assistance in creating metadata.
The eLearning Compliance Manager is a tool to identify
course elements in commen media formats, organize the
elements into a common (XML) format, export the data into
standards-compliant formats, and manage the elements via
standard-compliant environment. ELCMan performs multiple
conversion: Word to HTML, PPT to HTML, AICC->SCORM,
SCORM->AICC, SCORM->IEEE. The tools unpacks zipped
standards packages. It also creates metadata to describe
the new courses, and uses the new metadata to publish to
supported standards: AICC cmi00v35, SCORM 1.1, 1.2, 2004,
and IEEE (coming soon). ELCMAN coordinates disparate
objects into a single coherent course with structure,
metadata and uses metadata to publish.
Anita converted a ppt presentation into AICC and SCORM
formats and published. To do this she created a project
which allow you to options to break up the the content by
structure, keyword (lesson, obj, prereq, and others.
ELCMan will create the structure and course based on
those keywords.
Anita said that some clients use a customized version of
eLCMan to create all content in word documents, use word
document to work with customer, run it through a
propriety version of the software to export to the
customers authoring system. Anita said this tool can
support Flash content.
Anita is looking for beta testers for her product. Send
an email to information @twobriallant.com
Wednesday,
February 2, 2005
CMI Working Group / Independent Test Lab: Bill McDonald,
Chairman
Independent Test Lab
Bill reviewed the background of the Independent Test Lab
(ITL) Bill discussed the test suite and available code.
Bill reviewed the test suite issues: requirements,
financing/resources, and testing. Bill talked about the
need for a new test suite and discussed the requirements
of the Test Suite. Bill asked Test Suite users about what
they liked the most about the test suite. They replied:
Scenarios and Logging. Dislikes for the test suite: Test
Suite needs to be wizard based, Installation,
Documentation/Rationale in Test Procedures(e.g., want
this element to be here for this reason), Dependency on
the Server (part of installation comment) –
detection of features, needs to be web-server independent
or simplify the setup of the web-server or install
another web-server (nice to has).
Suggestions to use .Net and framework to solve the
web-server problems; Bill discussed possible problems
with .Net usage. Anita Kilgore offered some suggestions
on how to get a .Net installation. Steve Smith asked if
AICC could host a Test Suite environment. Bill responded
with reasons why this may not be best for test.
Discussions resulted on the usage of an on-line Test
Suite service. The result of the conversion was an
on-line test would be great but there are potential
problems that could arise so there will always need to be
a downloadable test suite. Right now it would be best to
just concentrate on the downloadable test suite.
AI –Bill would like between now and the next meeting
would be use cases and asked for volunteers: Anita
Kilgore, Steve Smith, Neil Cramer, Guy Tourigny. Would
like by June 1st.
AI – Bill will contact Karl Buhl who has a web
server that he has used. Bill will check with Karl to get
the information to Bill
AI –Bill would like some technical information on
development environments: Guy Tourigny, Anita Kilgore, Ed
Cohen.
AI –Bill would like information on and assistance
with writing ActiveX controls that will interact with
Javascript to test the API: , Anita Kilgore, Shirkant
Pattahil.
Bill will have an outline for some of these requirements
definition for the new test suite at the next meeting.
Bill thinks we will need to change the spec to
incorporate Unicode
CMI Working Group
Bill gave an overview of the CMI subcommittee activities
including CMI001 - V4.0, CMI Off Specification, CMI001
Version 4.0 Errata. Bill discussed why AICC came up with
a new version of the CMI specification and what was in
the newly released version. Bill credited a Russian
developer, Oleg Estekhin, with finding the worst mistake
in the specification; the developer also told Bill how to
fix the problem (BNF). Bill said “Thank you,
Oleg.”
Bill discussed the future direction for the CMI001
specification. Jack said the IEEE standard did not have a
mechanism for extensions. This means that AICC will be
less likely to adopt IEEE specifications. Jack thinks we
can live together with the differences if everyone
understands the differences. Whenever we need to add
functionality should look around if it is in another spec
and then adopt those specs (unless IMS which has
licensing problems)
Jack asked that Bill initiate a discussion on what we
should do with the CMI Specification: Where Do We Go From
Here.
Bill discussed concentrating on a new transport
mechanism. Currently there is the API and HACP. HACP is
limited. Would like to see a better HACP: easy to parse,
can go thru firewalls, content developers can use without
need for an ActiveX control. But can use Javascript as
is, use server –to-server communication. We are
studying changes resulting from Longhorn. Bill sees using
SOAP protocol.
AI –Ed Cohen is doing research on transport
mechanism and asked for input on technologies and
strategies to add to the research ahe is doing.
Content Packaging: Jack said we could take the 4 or 5
course structure files and putting that information into
one XML course structure file and throwing it in a zip
file.
AI –Jack will work on the XML representation of the
course structure files as an addition to his work on
Offline CMI.
Discussion on .zip, Lenny said it was important to call
out what exactly in the zip file. Karl said that .exe
format is important. Bill agreed that we need to call out
more than zip, root of zip (XML file at root), relative
paths. Ed said Jack should incorporate a distinction
between run-time vs authoring in his work. Ed said that
the problem with the SCORM spec is that you cannot
distinguish between types of information.
Bill identified areas of work: AI –Jack, Bill, Ed
Transport Mechanism (Ed to research and have options by
May 1)
Encoding (Unicode, UTF-8?) need to identify the encoding
mechanism in the XML
Will need strategy for backward compatibility
Need a data element (course structure) identifying
transport mechanism
May want to consider optional data elements (e.g.,
success status, completion status) to support same
functionality that have in SCORM data model. Jack
suggested several new data elements. Jack will start a
discussion form on the BBS to get a feel for additional
data elements. Neil, said we need to decide on any new
data elements before Helsinki.
Content Package
Zip Spec (identify the specific zip like pkzip)
Directory Structure
Offline/Online CMI (which spec dealing with)
Metadata for CMI001
AI - Bill – consider a change management process for
controlling the specification. Lenny said we documented
change control process. Don’t want to make a lot of
incremental changes but have a version release process
(what is going into version and when it will come out).
Tracking system for changes. Ed will check on a tracking
tool.
AI - Jack asked if there is a need for an XML versoin for
the communication data model which the IEEE has
developed. Ed said the transport mechanism will require
that. Jack will send Ed the info on the IEEE XML format.
Embry-Riddle CAPT Program: Gary Morrison, Embry-Riddle
Aeronautical University
Gary who lives in Punta Gorda, FL talked briefly about
riding out the hurricane that decimated Punta Gorda and
how he rode it out in his house. Then Gary talked about
the domestic ab initio program, CAPT, at Embry-Riddle.
Start out as First Officer program. Decided airlines
don’t hire First Officers but are interested in
hiring Captains, thus the name of the program. Gary
discussed the background of Emery Riddle. Need to be more
innovative to stay on top as a university. Gary discussed
the other university programs (Embry Riddle runs the
USAFA program). Gary discussed the need for a metric for
“experience equaling judgment”. Customers are
demanding employees with a work ethic (cockpit
management). Gary’s job was to work in a think tank
to create a pilot training program for the year 2020 and
if successful the university will implement. They were
tasked to change the paradigm of the training program.
CAPT trains pilot to replace the retiring force in the
airlines now. Decided on an airport to he headquarters
for training, originally St. Augustine but now Palm
Coast, Fl. Program is ab initio through jet transition,
started out 10 months now 14 months. The progam has a
limited bandwidth of 96 students per year max with a
screening pre-selection. This is not an undergraduate
program, must have a degree to get in. The screening test
is about $300 (potential candidate’s cost) and $80K
for the program if can qualify. Entire program is crew
concept. Only solo are those needed for FAA
certification. Used BS Air Sciences academics in program.
Attendees come out about 2 courses short of an MS Air
Sciences. Emphasis on CRM, Human Factors, stress
management, and anger management. They live the aviation
experience daily. Average age is 28 but they have cadets
with ages from 23-43.
Specification for Offline CMI: Jack Hyde, AICC &
Shirkant Pattathil , Harbinger Systems
Overview of Offline CMI
Jack presented an overview of Offline CMI. This is the
same overview given at the AICC Symposium on Monday. Jack
discussed the goals of Offline CMI: allow the same
content to be used online or offline, enable convenience
of offline use of content with record keeping, enable any
offline CMI system to work with any online CMI system.
Jack discussed the areas of the specification including
the download of content, student data transfer, details
of communication and request. Jack also discussed what is
not covered by the specification. Jack emphasized that
this specification allows AICC, SCORM v2 and SCORM 2004
data. Jack explained the bucket concept that provides for
use of different specifications. Jack laid out the next
steps. Lenny asked some questions about assumptions: Is
there an assumption that whatever is downloaded is
pre-packaged. Answer, yes but it must be documented. Look
at this spec and assume the LMS can magically package up
the stuff.
AI Jack and Shirkant should put language in the spec that
states the responsibilities of the content and the CMI.
AI - Tom King, Ed Cohen, Lenny Greenberg, Joe Lowan,
George Wang, Anita Kilgore will review the specification
and send comments to Jack and Shirkant for review and
incorporation.
Offline CMI Communication Specification
Shirkant reviewed the communication data model and
encouraged discussion on certain elements. Discussion
occurred on need for a unique manner to identify the
Student Machine (e.g., need a machine finger (GUID) and a
machine name). Also need to identify that the Offline CMI
player is responsible for creating this information.
Lenny said that the PENS specification had this same
problem and that this spec should look at the methodology
to generate the unique ID. Discussion occurred on going
online, authenticate, and download Student ID and
Password. This may not be allowed by some installations
(cannot send passwords). Note: Student Password may be a
separate password; this may be implementation specific.
Shirkant needs to emphasize what is implementation
specific in the data model. Question was raised if
Progress.Course. Element.Specification.Type should be at
the Course level and not at the Course.Element level. A
lively discussion followed. Shirkant explained the
concept of the Offline Course GUID (mandatory). Lenny
asked if this is used for packet transfer; who uses it
LMS. Shirkant said yes it is the LMS ID. Lenny said that
the Offline Player should use the PENS methodology to do
the downloading of the content packages: getting IDs,
tracking, etc. The synchronization is not covered. The
calls could be the same calls as in PENS.
AI - Ed, Lenny, Tom K, Shirkant, and Jack will
investigate similarity of functions in the PENS
specification to those in the Offline CMI specification.
Reconcile data model elements and calls to have
consistency where it is possible.
Shirkant resumed the session on February 3rd reviewing
the remainder of his presentation.
Thursday,
February 3, 2005
Training Infrastructure Subcommittee - Technologies that
Impact the Future of Training: Ed Cohen, Plateau
Ed gave an overview of his presentation to include the
topics: what’s happening with Longhorn, embedded
search technologies, java or Flash for embedded
applications.
Longhorn
MS new operating system, more secure, more functionality.
IE the way we know it will go away, limited backward
compatibility. Long horn will have a capability for
server vitualization to allow you to run multiple
instances of operating system on your machine or multiple
servers on your machine. Longhorn is due out the middle
of this year for client version, end of this year for
server version. Anyone can sign up for beta program and
get copies. Ed says that it is pretty solid at this time.
This may be the single largest training effort of all
time. Hardware got ahead of the operating systems: 2 new
processors with 32 bit emulation. Will start seeing 64
bit applications which will change graphics and real time
simulations. Only one version of Longhorn, same set of
routines: one for 32-bit and the other for 64-bit. Need
to plan for this, acquire, test, decide what you will do.
XP and 2K are too expensive to maintain for you and
Microsoft. Whether Longhorn fixes this or not it will
take a while for the hackers to figure out how to break
it. 64-bit support is another motivation for Longhorn
(Linux has it). Microsoft thinks there will be more
enterprise .Net applications with Longhorn.
Embedded Search Technologies
Next big this happening in OS (and also Longhorn) is
embedded search technologies. Metatagging cam about so
you can tag data. Mounds of information. Google indexed
it and changed the way we use the internet. Can find
information now but unless you have labeled or have a
tool you won’t find it. OS putting search capability
one level below the UI. This means that all aps will
provide search engines. Index your computer, 3
fapproaches – Google, Microsoft, and spotlight. Puts
context to your searches and indexes. New seach engines
have limited file types today (.doc, .ppt, etc) but
expanding. New engine is Spotlight which indexes content
as well, displaying results based on what appears inside
the files and put context to this. As you organize files
and put together documents this will put context to the
documents so when you search it will find the cluster of
documents you have created/worked with. Can point to
other peoples indexes and repositories. All of the search
technologies are accessible through an API. Ed gave a
demo of iTunes which demonstrates this search technology:
On his computer he has about 2600 songs or music with
meta-tags which is part of a normal MP3 file. The search
engine takes advantage of the metadata that is a normal
part of the data file format. People will start of fill
out metadata information in the future to take advantage
of these powerful search engines. Tom King noted that the
new MPEG standards will have support for pre-populated
data for use by search engines.
Where is this headed: real time indexes of multiple
sources, ability to point to remote indexes, ability to
have rules apply to searches, context to information (not
just search strings and raw results). Does this introduce
another type of learning or learning management. Context
can change navigation strategies in learning content.
Small Hardware Devices
Hardware is smaller, cheaper, faster; Ed showed the new
small Sony Viao, a notebook computer with a very small
display, 800-600 small screen display with a small usable
keyboard with wifi and Bluetooth. PDAs haven’t taken
off as training devices because of resolution and
incompatibility of OS. The new little boxes can take
training material the can play on 800x600 and make
feasible. Both training and authoring will un well on the
small boxes. Ray Butler says UPS will issue all pilots a
small laptop to connect at the gate and take training.
Wireless becoming more prevalent; there are data services
through cellular provides.
If we meet in San Diego next Jan. ask QualComm to give a
presentation on embedded devices with wifi to transmit
real-time information.
Ed thinks we should define a sub-notebook for training as
part of the hardware spec. Bluetooth and wifi make this
very feasible.
Training Infrastructure Subcommittee - PENS Specification
Updates – Tom King, Macromedia
Tom King and Scott Shultz performed a dramatization of
the PENS concept. Tom presented a status of Pens which
was conceived in 2004. The PENS specification is on the
AICC website under PENS. Tom described the PENS 1.0
specification changes from the previous draft. Tom
reviewed portions of the PENS Specification, abstract,
conceptual model, data model, reponses, and binding. Neil
asked Tom to elaborate on the receiving end of the
specification. General questions about IT issues for
publishing and requesting. There may be ports or protocol
issues but this is based on HTTP which should raise IT
issues. You can also specify HTTPS or FTP or secure FTP.
Types will be a vendor implementation. Another IS issues
around physically deploying the content. Other versions
of specification may look at a SOAP implementation. Jack
said another implementation may relate to offline CMI.
For offline CMI there may be another profile of this
specification for publication. Tom pointed out what this
specification is not doing. For example, there is no
revoke command. That is a business process of the
recipient. Bill asked about URL encoding of special
characters in the name. Tom said the spec indicates that
dashes are not to be URL encoded. The document provides
prototypes/examples/samples of the specification
elements.
There are vendor implantations of this subject. Tom
discussed the next steps: approval of AGR, AGR for
Content package (like de facto practices), vendor
implementation and stabilization, PENS futures (web
services binding, migration etc).
AI For formal acceptance, the document numbers are
AGR011, CMI010. The timeline for finalization is
Bill post final documents on web site and contacts Scott.
Scott sends out notification to AICC voting members with
link to/ information on AICC web site where documents can
be found.
Review period until March 15th.
Incorporate comments and finalize document by April 15.
Tom King will notify Scott to send out a member vote on
April 15 (1 week).
Bill will post official document on web site.
Pathlore PENS Implementation and Content Developer’s
Assistant (CDA)-Lenny Greenberg & Scott Schultz,
Pathlore
Lenny gave a short update on Pathlore releases,
acquisition (DKSystems OnTrack), partnerships
(Documentum), company outlook. Lenny described
XLMS™, a web services API to Pathlore. This allows
real-time integration with the business rules engine.
WS-I compliant – WS-I is a web services standards
group. Pathlore can integrate with .NET (they are a .Net
shop), J2EE, Websphere. Lenny described the current PENS
– Pathlore LMS Implementation. PENS is an XLMS
application. Lenny showed the high-level architecture
view of the PENS implementation. Lenny discussed the
Content Developer Assistant and described the benefits.
Scott Schultz gave a demonstration of PENS. Made changes
to Authorware content and saved as a package and wants to
test it on the LMS.
Scott gave a demo of Pathlores implementation of the PENS
spec. Tom King had previously created a PENS package in
Authorware. Scott ran the Create a Learning Object
Notification Command to identify the server based file or
local file, target LMS URL, general data (PENS version,
Authorware version, optional passworkd, receipt URL (who
is notified that it is ok), alerts URL (send mail to if
didn’t work)), Package information (type, formati,
staging URL, URL empty). Scott clicked the send command
to process the PENS command. A PENS command message was
returned with no errors. In Pathlore, the LMS copied the
Courseware and a course was created in the Pathlore LMS.
Neil asked Tom King when Flash extensions would be
available.
Scott described the Content Developers Assistant, which
is a process which runs in the background while running
content. A content track window will show everything that
is passed between the content and LMS. This provides a
very powerful debugging tool. The session data can also
be exported as an XML file.
Checklist for Purchasing Vendor Products
Mike reviewed the history of the Training Development
Checklist Project. Mike to might want to add: “Does
LMS support PENS?” and “Does Authoring Tool
support PENS?” Does the development process conform
to AQP or ISD guidelines? Mike will remove the Smart
Graphics/Simulation secton.
AI For formal acceptance, the document number is AGR012.
The timeline for finalization is
Bill post final document on web site and contacts Scott.
Scott sends out notification to AICC voting members with
link to/ information on AICC web site where documents can
be found.
Review period until March 15th.
Incorporate comments and finalize document by April 15.
Mike Sharp will notify Scott to send out a member vote on
April 15 (1 week).
Bill will post official document on web site.
Extending 3D Design Collaboration into the Field, An
Adobe’s 3D Product Demonstration: Rajeev Kak, Adobe
Enabiling 3D. Rajeev discussed the divisions of Adobe and
where his product is situated. He discussed the document
lifecycle challenges. Rajeev is focusing on an
“intelligent document.” Embed an XML schema
inside a pdf with business logic embedded that can do
field checking, etc. Adobe has taken 3D CAD models and
embedding in a pdf document. Rajeev discussed the 3D CAD
formats and most were proprietary. The 3DIF (3D Industry
Forum) lead by Intel has created a universal 3D (U3D)
format.
Rajeev gave a presentation with an embedded 3D file. He
demonstrated using controls to rotate, pan, zoom,
animate, etc the actual embedded graphics. You can also
manage views, creating new views. You can add comments to
the 3D embedded graphic. To do this you would need an
authoring tool but once the pdf file is created anyone
with a reader can work with it. Adobe has seen 3D graphic
object size shrinkage from 6X to 15X for the embedded
object. Rajeev demonstrated an animation embedded in a
pdf document. Rajeev demonstrated a pdf procedure (step
by step) with an embedded animation to use with the
step-by-step procedures. Neil asked if you can use links
in the 3D graphic in addition to the text. They are
working on authoring with the 3D component with any
amount of text to 3D lilnkages. Adobe is looking at MS
Word, PowerPoint, and FrameMaker as the building tools.
The 3D objects have metadata associated with them (the
CAD metadata). You can take the metadata and put it a
repository for searching. Rajeev showed how you can use
the metadata on the 3D level.
Training Media and Methods: A Synopsis of the Open
Discussions With Airlines during the Toulouse and Bangkok
AICC Meetings: Bernard Bouyt, Airbus
Bernard reviewed the discussions with airlines in
Toulouse (10/03) and Bangkok (10/04). The subjects of
discussion and synopsis of results follows (see
Bernard’s presentation for complete review):
Utilization of materials from manufacturer
Most airlines are using training materials as is with
complements, Some use as is, Some modify, Some redesign
Issues include cooperation between airlines and
manufacturers for customization, resources, authoring
tool(s) competence, course change approval from
authorities
Use of Intranet
Half airlines use intranet; half don’t
Bernard discussed the issues with using an intranet:
approval, unions, need to be paid. CD-ROM distributions
are much used.
Use of Internet
Biggest problem is firewall and security issues.
Internet is international and not world wide. In some
countries it is expensive and who will pay.
Need for Offline Player
If internet is used access to an instructor is critical
Instructor-led vs CBT content
Average is 79.88 (CBT) vs 20.12 (instructor led)
Instructor available during self-paced sessions
On some aircraft types: 100% instructor led (union
requirements)
CBT compared to Training Devices (not simulators)
Training devices are provided to save simulator time
Training devices sometimes need information from CBT;
airlines what CBT to be as complete as possible
Try to move from more expensive devices to cheaper ones.
Compared to CBT, training device is a good tool to expose
the student to more complex situations.
Bernard asked how often should we have this type of
discussions to understand the airline needs. An example
of a discussion point is the evolution/need of paper and
documentation in training programs.
AI Anne for Agenda. Meeting should start with a
discussion of what are the issues that are important to
airlines. Question: What about an AICC meeting interests
you most? Do this on a Tuesday. Would be good to get
information from AICC airline attendees on what their
other departments are interested in.
Simulation & Smart Graphics - I-COMPONENT
Communication Protocol and Examples: Caroline Tonel &
Sabastien Fraysse, I-COMPONENT
Caroline Tonel gave an overview of the company, The
presentation will give a technical overview and the
potential services around Smart Graphics.
Sebastien discussed need for smart graphics for static
CBT and Documents, Interactive CBT, Advanced CBT.
I-Component is an implementation of Smart Graphics using
Flash MX. There are 3 tools: snapshot tool, communication
with CBT content protocol, centralized communication
protocol. The technical approach has two domains. The
snapshot tool is based on the Communication with CBT
Content Protocol. Need to define a data model and
communication protocol.
The I-Component work is based on AICC Draft Specification
Smart Graphics 1.1. Details on the I-component
specification can be found at
www.i-component.com/aicc/i-component-specification-001.pdf..
Sabastien discussed the communication rules (messages).
Currently I-Component does no error manage on the
communication messages. The protocol has been tested on
HTML, ppt, VB, Visual C++ applications. Sabastien
discussed the I-component data model and the differences
between it and the AICC Smart Graphics specification.
Sabastien discussed data management, a single or multiple
files.
I-Component will mail the pdf document to Bill McDonald
to post on the AICC website. Trying to access it directly
from the link does not work.
The I-Component will implement the AICC Smart Graphics
specification if it is completed in a timely fashion.
Caroline and Sabastien gave a presentation on the use of
the I-Component smart graphics library.
Friday,
February 4, 2004
Reusable Object Working Group: Bill Shook, Boeing
Postponed until Thursday, Feb. 10. Bill Shook will send
out email with the time and call in number.
|
