AICC Subcommittee Working Group Meeting
Meeting Minutes
February 2 - 6th ,  2004
Phoenix, Arizona USA

Monday: 2/2

Higher Education and eLarning Software Initiatives – Jim Farmer, SAKAI Project
Jim Farmer described the SAKAI project which is a consortium of 4 universities (Michigan, MIT, Stanford, and Deleware) along with the Open Knowledge Initiative (OKI) to create an open source course management system. The open source system and all materials will be available to the public. The results of the initiative will be deployed at over 80leaning institutions within the next 2 years.

CMI Test Lab – Bill McDonald, Alteon Training
Bill McDonald discussed the background, current certified products, test suite status, and test plans. Bill reinterated that AICC certifies products only, not people. Bill discussed the various tests being done now and the AICC compliance programs.

CMI Working Group – Bill McDonald, Alteon Training
Bill McDonald reviewed the goals of the CMI document revision task, status of the revision, and the next steps. To review the CMI specification, interested individuals can access all revisions at: http://aicc.org/review/. Bill requested that everyone review the specification and send all written comments to the Forum Bulletin Board. Bill then reviewed some of the recommended changes to the document from Mark Schupp and discovered an omission in the document discovered by one of the reviewers.

Specification for a CMI Player – Jack Hyde, AICC
Jack Hyde handed out the latest draft of the Offline CMI Communication white paper. Jack described the purposed of the document and reviewed the document that describes an interface for CMI and offline CMI Communication.

Advanced Interactive Multimedia Production for the Army Comanche – Henry Ryng inXSol and Joseph Bailery, Right Hemisphere
Henry Ryng discussed an effort for Honeywell developing multi-media for the Army Comanche Helicopter. Henry discussed the goal of the project was to deliver training at the same time as when the helicopter was finished – not after. Henry wanted to use the CATIA drawings for the A/C. Previous projects had rebuilt all CATIA components to make them lightweight but this was costly and time consuming. Henry used technology from Right Hemisphere, a 3D rendering system that provides CATIA compression rapidly and lightweight. Development time went from 4 weeks/part to 5 minutes/part. This product provided extremely light-weight data files allowing fully animated CATIA to be delivered in courseware and PowerPoint. Henry gave a demonstration of some of the courseware created for the Comanche program. He introduced Joe Bailey, Right Hemisphere who explained the 3D tool. Joe said Right Hemisphere is an entertainment company that participated in the development of Lord or the Rings. Their technology provides fully animated CATA data embedded in PowerPoint and HTML for web delivery. The Break Assembly shown in the demonstration was a 20MB file in CATIA and in the demo was 500K. The product has a 90%-95% compression rate for CAD data. Requirements are a PC with a graphic card with openGL. Viewer is free to distribute. Development requires their deep server technology which renders the CATIA files.

AICC Executive Committee
The executive committee reviewed financial status and discussed ideas for increasing membership. Tom Bolton, AICC Communications Chair will work on a short (1 page) AICC Newsletter. The AICC Newsletter will contain a recap of the AICC agenda, highlight 1 or 2 significant presentations and subcommittee projects. The newsletter will also provide a preliminary agenda for the next AICC meeting. The newsletter will be posted on the web and hopefully published in trade journals. Tom King suggested the development of an AICC workshop to instruct in the understanding and use of AICC standards. The executive committee asked Bill McDonald and Mike Sharp to promote AICC at the May WATS conference and give an AICC presentation. Scott will contact the WATS organizers to see if we can give a presentation. Bernard suggested that the executive committee have a strategic planning session at the San Francisco meeting in June. The executive committee suggested we plan a ½ or 1 day AICC workshop at the start of the Bangkok meeting. The executive committee agreed on future meeting dates which will be posted on the web site.


Tuesday: 2/3

Karen Peterson, Honeywell Manager, greeted the group and mentioned the time and place of the Honeywell reception Tuesday evening.

Chairman’ Report – Bernard Bouyt, AICC chair
Bernard reported the results of Monday evening Executive Committee. AICC finances are in a good situation. The AICC Communication Subcommittee Chair is Tom Bolton, Bombardier. There is an open position on the executive committee for an airframe manufacture or A/C equipment supplier representative at-large. Bernard briefly described the organization and activities planned to advertise the AICC role and specifications.


DELS Subcommittee – Bernard Bouyt, Chairman

Introduction to Metadata
Bernard described what is metadata, the previous activities of the subcommittee, and discussed some caveats when using metadata.

ISO Metadata
Bernard discussed the participation of AICC in the ISO/JTC1/SC36, Information Technology for Learning, Education, and Training. One goal of the subcommittee is to move the various existing specifications (IEEE LOM) to ISO 11179 instantiations. Bernard described the conceptual model of ISO11179: Data Element Concept, Conceptual Domain, Value Domain, and Data Element. Groups defining standards would reference the framework defined in 11179.

Metadata for Aviation Industry
Using the IEEE LOM framework, Bernard reviewed the results of LOM discussions from previous meeting. This information will be incorporated into the DELS white paper. Bernard recommended that in the future the AICC select and/or defined a system for Meta-metadata. Bernard is interested in influencing the ISO to incorporate the needs of the aviation industry for metadata.

Process and Management Subcommittee – Yvonne Johnson, Chairman
Yvonne reviewed the goals of the Process and Management subcommittee.

Instructional Systems Metric Management, Mario Trejo
Mario Trejo described the metrics management system developed by Boeing Defense Systems. Mario discussed sets of discrepancy reports generated as part of the Boeing Defense Systems courseware development process. The tool can monitor multiple development projects. The data from the reports is used to revamp the project processes. Internal Discrepancy Tracking, External Discrepancy Tracking. The reports are identical between in the internal and external reports. External discrepancies have extra fields for tracking. Both reports show deficiencies, attributes by check points, and course progress by checkpoints. They have developed Product Development Tracking System and Reports, a set of comprehensive reports for cost and schedule performance. Mario described the Surveillance Tracking System used to monitor task compliance, monitor adherence to company standardized processes and provide risk assessments. Mario described future tracking reports on Quality, Timeliness, Efficiency, and Cycle Time Status,


Reusable Object Working Group – Bill Shook
Bill described the goals of the working group. He showed the 5 levels of aggregation that were decided upon by the group. Robbie Robson noted that there is a learnativty model (www.learnativity.org) with 5 levels of aggregation. There was a discussion on whether to incorporate the aggregation levels and related metadata as a separate white paper or incorporate into Bernard’s white paper. Bill next discussed metadata recommended by the working group associated with aggregation level. Bill recommended additional data at some of the levels. Bill discussed the educational category and proposes additional data in the educational category. Bill described two approaches for handling learning objectives in metadata provided to AICC from 2 vendors: Claude Ostyn, Click2Lean and Gianluca Rolandelli, Giunti. Bill discussed the two approaches and recommended a different approach which is part of the Educational Category call Educational Objective.

Training Infrastructure Working Group – Ed Cohen

Package Exchange Notification Services (PENS) – Tom King
Edit, Compile, Link, Test of content can be time consuming. Would be nice to focus on deployment and have a clearer path to implementation. This would make the content testing cycle much easier and facilitate content updates. Tom put together a vendor working group composed of Pathlore, Giunti, Question Mark, Documentum, IBM Plateau, DigitalThink. Try to have a prototype implementation by the June AICC meeting in San Francisco. Tom described the Package Exchange Model. Tom defined the proposed specification for notification options and transfer options. Tom discussed the goals: focus on learning and training uses, simplify deployment for authors, use established and understood technology. Progress is moving along well and it is reasonable for prototype implementations in June. Tom reviewed the current issues with the proof-of-concept prototypes. Tom felt there were potential synergies with the “Offline CMI” specification.

Review of Changes to AGR001 – Ed Cohen
Ed reviewed the updated Platform AGR noting incorporation of changes from the last meeting. Discussion during review resulted in some changes. Ed will make the changes and have Bill post on the website.


IEEE LTSC Update

LTSC Current Work Program – Robby Robson
Robby discussed the current work going on in the LTSC – LOM, CMI, Digital Rights Expression Language (DREL), Reusable Competency Definition (RCD) and standards accredited so far. Robby reviewed the processes for the lifecycle of a standard. IEEE is starting a program “Get 1484” for free distribution of standards.

CMI, SCORM and IEEE LTSC – Tyde Richards
Tyde reviewed the history and timelines of the various learning specifications. Tyde reviewed the conceptual model for the learning specifications. Tyde thinks there will be another SCORM release after SCORM 2004. Next Tyde discussed the IEEE current work status. There is a difference of opinion about standardizing IMS content packaging and a study group has been set up. There is an advisory committee to determine SCORM direction; Bill McDonald represents AICC interests on the committee. One of the things of interest to the ADL community is how ADL/AICC/IEEE might converge. ADL would like to work on a common white paper with these groups. Tyde encourages joint activities and thinks there may be an opportunity for a joint IEEE/AICC workshop as part of the Bangkok meeting.

Status of ADL Initiative & SCORM: Tyde Richards for Phil Dodds
ADL near term priorities were discussed; SCORM 1.3 is not called SCORM 2004. SCORM 2004 is now released and final –test suite available next month.. SCORM evolution was discussed broken out by components: Content Aggregation Model and Runtime Environment. There are differences in SCORM 2004 that break compatibility with SCORM 1.2. The SCORM stewardship option is being considered and will be looked at in 3 phases. SCORM adoption has been very good. International adoption is stronger than expected as is adoption in education. Question asked if SCORM testing and adoption of 1.2 may continue and content and LMS vendors may still get SCORM 1.2 adoption after SCORM 2004 released. Tyde discussed the ADL-AICC collaboration efforts and ADL hopes to harmonize the ADL and AICC efforts. ADL sees specifications calling out both SCORM and AICC. Requiring conformance to both is problematic. Customers and implementers would like a migration plan that would result in harmonization and convergence. Bill wants to wait until the next version of the AICC specification is released (v 4.0) and then work toward SCORM harmonization. It was decided that an initial face-to-face meeting between AICC and ADL be proposed to ADL. Tyde will try to setup a meeting in Seattle or at the San Francisco AICC meeting. AICC representatives will be Jack Hyde, Anne Montgomery, Bill McDonald, Neil Cramer, Jerry Spartks, Travis Carlton, and Tom King (remotely).


Wednesday: 2/4

NWA SimpleSequencing – Part II – Neil Cramer, NWA
Neil reviewed the basics of simple sequencing. Simple sequencing is a method for representing intended behavior of a learning experience based on properties and conditional rules. Neil’s presentation is based on the latest IMS specification referenced by SCORM 2004. Neil discussed the IMS Simple Sequencing specification components noting that IMS content packaging is only required to exchange sequence definition instances between LMS systems. Neil reviewed the IMS sequencing modes: Definition and Tracking, Process Flows, Utilities. Neil uses the IBM LMS that provides a full implementation of the IMS simple sequencing model. His talk is based on experience with this LMS. The basis of simple sequencing is an activity tree. Sequencing rules can be assigned at any point in the tree. Neil reviewed all the components of sequencing, provided examples of the sequencing definition model attributes, and described the sequencing controls. Once the sequencing model is defined the tracking model is used to define the results of the interactions. The sequencing model defines student flow through the content. The tracking model performs the action reporting to the LMS using the communication data model. The IMS specification describes each of models in detail. Neil described a possible implementation of one of the Use Cases provided by Boeing and referenced in the Simple Sequencing specification. Neil laid out a sample activity tree for the use case showing the modules and corresponding rules. Then he showed an implementation progress through the training modules. He discussed the sequence and tracking flow variations and how the sequencing rules would handle them.


Introduction to Anark Studio - Bruce Curling, Anark Studio
Anark Studio is an authoring environment for interactive 3-D content. It interfaces to models from 3-D modeling systems (3D StudioMax, MIA, Deep Exploration-Right Hemisphere). Anark takes advantage of the new graphics cards on the market. It interfaces to most 3D modeling systems. Anark sells the authoring system and provides services for development. Anark lessons are SCORM 1.2 conformant. Initially Anark needed a graphics card for rendering but the latest version has a software renderer. Minimum hardware requirements are 700M PC (1G preferred). Bruce gave several demonstrations of the system. Using a model of the F-16 cockpit from 3D studio max, Bruce showed how Anark Studio could easily move the throttle. Anark Studio has a library of 90 preprogrammed behaviors that can applied to the simulation.

Classrooms without Walls: Jack Watson, Honeywell
Jack described how Honeywell is delivering eLearning. He reviewed terminology, characteristics of a virtual classroom. He noted that production of content for a virtual classroom can have a lower skill level than for production of CBT. Honeywell uses an eLearning broadcast studio to provide an isolated environment that allows instructors to focus on the instruction with no distractions. Jack discussed the course design decisions. Honeywell used PlaceWare/Live Meetingwith AT&T Broadcast Audio Conferency. The training is well received by customers and Honeywell plans to expand. Honeywell gives instructors (ex-classroom instructors) voice training to adapt their voice to be most effective in the Virtual Classroom environment. The most important aspect of voice training is speed – instructors learn to slow down their speech for the new type of training.

Use of Software from Cockpit Equipment in the Training Environment – Kevin O’Brien, Honeywell
Kevin demonstrated Honeywell’s newest simulation products. Hardware boxes are going away and becoming more simulation based. Kevin discussed his experiences leading a project to rehost avionics software and demonstrated the final product which is being used by several desk top simulation vendors including AeroSim who attended the meeting. Honeywell was beginning a new avionics system called Primus Epic – the hardware looks like a PC card and software was developed in C. The goals of the rehost effort were to enable the use of the A/C software for pilot training, classroom operations should have high fidelity, training should be kept current with the software updates, and the rehosted software should run in 50% of a 2G P4 leaving the rest for simulation manufacturers. Kevin showed a display which ran directly on the PC with no software changes. Honey discussed the customer benefits – primary benefi tis that the Honeywell system architecture can quickly implement end-item updates independent of end-user hardware. Kevin note that the main drawback is that the software is not customizable because it is the actual device software. Kevin feels that this project shows that rehosts will become more prevalent.

Checklist for Purchasing Vendor Products – Mike Sharp, Honey well
Mike reviewed progress on the Vendor Checklists which he hopes will be ready for final release at the June AICC meeting. Mike reviewed the checklist and will incorporate comments from the meeting.

Using Data Collection Tools in Flight Training – Kris Rockwell, Hybrid Learning Systems
Kris reviewed the current AQP data collection scenarios. Airlines have multiple databases containing AQP information and some have poorly implemented collection methods. There is a lack of integration of this data with current training methodologies. Kris is working on a project to integrate data collections tools into the training footprint. Kris demonstrated some of this work. Kris will announce some new breakthroughs in this area and will be demonstrating at the WATS conference in Phoenix.


Thursday: 2/5

Airbus Smart Graphics in SVG – Jean-Louis Bravo, Airbus
Jean-Louis discussed the history of Airbus Smart Graphics which started in 1977. He reviewed the approach used for the Airbus 380 which is based on SVG but uses many elements from the previous Airbus Smart Graphics implementations. Jean-Louis reviewed Airbus 380 Smart Graphics requirements and described the new Smart Graphics architecture.

Presentation by DISTI - William Andrews, DISTI
DISTI has a tool to write OpenGL source code. There is a concern in DOD and some commercial companies about the number of plug-ins needed to run many applications. The DOD and many companies are not allowing plug-ins on their computers. The DISTI tool is used to design hardware displays and move the software directly into the hardware. Bill sees these applications moving from hardware design/development to training applications similar to the work Kevin O’Brien, Honeywell, described earlier in the meeting. Bill asked the group about the types of packaging his products would need to best communicate with an LMS. Bill thinks the commercial market would use the tools and technology that his company is developing and has come to AICC to see what should be done to DISTI products to move in that area.

A Model for Smart Graphics – Kris Rockwell, Hybrid Learning Systems
Kris Rockwell discussed some ideas for a model for smart graphics based on a paper written by Ian Wright presented at a previous AICC meeting. Kris implemented his ideas in a short demonstration created using .Net. He plans to solidify his concepts and present them at the next AICC meeting.

Content and Smart Graphic Communication and Content and Simulation Communication – Jack Hyde, AICC

Jack presented a new draft specification on Content and Smart Graphic Communication reviewing the goals of the guideline, definitions, and assumptions. Jack went into a detailed review of the guideline and showed several examples of how to apply the proposed guidelines. Several suggestions for changes/improvements were discussed. Jack will incorporate into the next release.

Jack passed out the latest revision of the Simulation Communication Specification for review. Because the new Smart Graphic specification is a simplification of Simulation spec, jack proposed that he wait until the less complex Smart Graphics document is reviewed before any more work on the simulation document.

Adoption of eLearning Specifications – Steven Griffin, IMS

Attendee Roster