 |
|
|
|
| | Site Map | Search | Home | Meeting Information | Online Presentations (for this meeting) | |
Note: in cases where the presentation was accompanied by PowerPoint slides those slides are available on the AICC website along with these meeting notes. Where used, they are noted in the notes below. Frequently more detailed information than as in these notes is available by looking at the PowerPoint presentation. CMI Subcommittee - Bill McDonald,
Alteon Bill’s PowerPoint presentation provided an overview of current subcommittee activities. Jack Hyde then made a presentation on Offline CMI. The Offline CMI now consists of three documents Offline CMI XML Communication AICC Packaging In discussing the three documents it was decided: Keep a single XSD for XML Communication with all elements optional. Keep the XSD fairly straight forward - leave all the data types as strings. Add to the Offline CMI document Describe some scenarios of how offline CMI might work. Both launching and updating or synchronizing. Augment Sec 3 to describe sub-scenarios. Clarify that the scope is not to enable "plug and play." Identify limitations of spec. Augment descriptions of elements. For instance student name and password may be used for CMI authentication. IBM DLE (Dynamic Learning
Experience) - Guy Tourigny, IBM Guy's presentation described a just in time system for Informal Learning. DLE creates courses based on keywords and other query information. The assembled course meets the student's requirements including length of time the student has for study. Metadata Working Group - Bill
Shook, Boeing Reviewed issues Discussed use of the term Not Supported, and decided to change to Not Used. Discussed use of the term mandatory vs. recommended - decided to retain mandatory. Decision - all vocabulary tokens will be one word all lower case and may include underscores. An exception is vocabulary tokens already determined by the LOM. These retain their LOM spelling which may include spaces. LifeCycle.contribute .role - agreed to new definitions for the vocabulary words. 4.2.4.1 - agreed to new definitions for the vocabulary words. 4.5.2 - agreed to new definitions for the vocabulary words.. Some of these definitions are used in earlier vocabularies. Intended end user role. Some of these definitions are used in other vocabularies - agreed to new definitions for some vocabulary words. Objective type was defined. Executive Committee Meeting It was decided to offer advertisements on AICC web site to members at a discount. Bill volunteered to write a simple description of what is expected of an AICC meeting host. Simulation and Smart Graphics -
Sebastien Fraysse, i3M and Jean-Louis Bravo, Airbus Best practices: Designing smart
graphics scenarios with IMS simple sequencing. Sebastien first compared current LMS and CBT standards (SCORM & AICC) to smart graphics. Sebastien then presented a case study with A320 procedures. A document describes using simple sequencing with a smart graphic for simulation-type instruction. The paper is on the AICC web site. Review content packaging spec -
Bill McDonald, Alteon The AICC Packaging specification CMI012 was reviewed, modified, and then voted on and approved as an official AICC document. Discussion of offline CMI resulted in the description of several scenarios for using content offline. Some of these will be reflected in future presentations. Pelesys LMS Implementation at
FedEx Air Operations - George Wang, Pelesys & Don
Bruss, FedEx The presentation included airline requirements and how Pelesys worked with FedEx to meet those requirements. Pelesys has a web-based online management and examination system. Don emphasized that his big investment is in training content, and Pelesys enables him to maintain his legacy courseware. It is important that his systems enable him to continue to migrate the training system infrastructure. New Technology Applications at
VTN Technologies - George Urich, VTN George demonstrated and discussed the VTN LMS and the many functions (LMS, TMS, LCMS) integrated into the product. PENS Plugfest Introduction - Tom
King Tom described PENS (Package Exchange Notification) and what it enables. The Plugfest Lab will provide us with real-world experiences. Plugfest is an event that brings together product teams, users, buyers, and specification developers. The point is to collaborate to improve implementations and specifications. Chairman's Report - Neil Membership Fees and Meeting Fees were requested for those who haven't yet paid. Previous Meeting - Considered a success because many new airlines involvement. Also gained some new AICC members. Upcoming Meetings Feb 4 - Feb 9 - May 2007 - Sep 2007 Jan 2008 - Gulf Air or Kingfisher Jun 2008 hosted by Airbus Plugfest Observations - Tom King What customers want is an answer to the question "Does system X work with system Y?" AICC can furnish self test software, but events like Plugfest can help determine real-world functionality. What should the AICC do in the future to help the customer? Certification testing may be the best approach. To increase visibility of the PENS spec, perhaps we should do a PENS demo at ASTD, or maybe at an Eliot Masey conference. Eedo Knowledgeware ForceTen and
PENS - Mark Scansen, Eedo Mark’s presentation provided a brief company history and list of current products and customers Their key product is an LCMS - ForceTen. Mark demonstrated some content that was authored in ForceTen. Mark discussed dynamic content vs static content. Adobe Captivate 2 - Andrew
Chemey, Adobe Andrew’s presentation did a quick company update then moved on to Captivate 2, its strategy and new features. Andrew then demonstrated using Captivate to build a demonstration. He pointed out that the resulting lesson will automatically generate AICC information to send to an LMS. (score, session time, status, etc). If you fill in a form in the lesson, the lesson will also generate a SCORM compliant manifest. The lesson developer can also use Captivate to send a PENS notification. PENS Plugfest Conclusion - Tom
King Tom assembled some slides to make the following points. Observations: Pens works Additional clarity needed on PENS conformance. The transfer point/staging is critical Actionable information in receipts & alerts would be valuable. Minor nits need to be corrected in PENS validation tools Self-test instructions and automation would help Possible next steps Compelling event at a trade show Improve self-test tools Clarify staging issues Repeat the plugfest Tom recommended Defer other bindings Use case/white papers on value/ROI Think outside the form box for UI Evaluate migration of spec to IEEE Web Services in Learning (WSIL) -
Steven Forth, WSIL Steven’s presentation discussed WISL (Web Services in Learning). WISL is an informal organization that wants to develop a small number of specifications - possibly through the AICC. It will provide a place to request/expose/test web services and web services integrations. To get access to the WSIL site, just
send an email to Steven Forth (steven.forth@gmail.com) WISL is currently working on Simple Deployment Architecture
Launch and Communication (Ed Cohen) Catalog Library Service (Mark
McCauley) Steven proposed a relationship to AICC similar to PENS group. The AICC meeting attendees agreed this is a good idea. Simple Deployment Architecture
(SDA) Project - Ed Cohen, Plateau Ed described the initial purpose of SDA and what it has evolved into today. WISL changed some of the original assumptions and approaches. SDA now has 3 different components Catalog library service SDA communication service SDA launch service Ed's presentation describes each of these in greater detail. OutStart - LCMS Capabilities,
Models, and Lessons - John Alonso, OutStart John's presentation describes "Content Platforms" with some case studies. John spent some time describing each of the 7 functions an LCMS may perform. An LCMS system may only perform 3 or 5 of these and still be an LCMS.
What does the industry need and
want in the future? Discussion lead by Neil Neil discussed a slide listing "areas of interest." Ray Butler described the problem of how to define an airline's own needs in a way that makes clear to a vendor what is really needed. Ray offered suggestions for the AICC to consider. Presenters of technical subjects should provide some background information before the meeting so that non-technical airline people can better understand the presentation. Can we do these meetings as a WEBEX? Put the meetings on Breeze? Ray
reviewed some of the ideas offered by Czech Airlines.
(See A white paper with several case studies based on airline experience would be more useful than a single presentation on one airline's experience. Ray suggested a white paper on fundamentals of selecting an LCMS. He then volunteered to start the paper. Don Bruss Suggested the AICC return to its fundamental objectives. He would like to see more on measurement criteria - how do you prove the value of a new a technology/product (like an LMS). Examples and case studies of how others measured training effectiveness and how money was saved would be useful. Brenda Robinson suggested we make a list of hot topics that airlines are interested in. Then the vendors can respond, put the content on the web and offer links to the AICC. In Eedo hosted events, they generally break the subject/attendees into three streams: Business level, instructional level, technical level. The AICC should consider the same for its meetings. Tom King suggested we are trying to do more and more for fewer and fewer. Maybe we could have two or three airlines provide presentations on the same problem. Vendors attending would get a better understanding of the airline market. Meetings that were interesting to Tom were ones where there was a focus - like the meeting on Simulations. Metrics or benchmarks for (a given approach) in aviation training would be a good theme for a future meeting. Robbie Robson asked how we measure success. Maybe a survey at the end of the meeting would provide information on how successful the meeting was. Neil requested any person send suggestions for topics for future meetings. Successfully Adopting 3D Based
Interactive Media Training for Operational Success -
George Earle, Right Hemisphere George discussed the adoption of 3D in the marketplace. His presentation discusses interactive 3D for training in the aviation industry. His presentation also discussed 3 products of Right Hemisphere that make the creating and using 3D products more efficient. His second presentation talked about Adobe products that make publishing 3D data easier. Adobe acrobat reader 7.0 and higher can handle 3D data. 787 Maintenance Training - Jeff
Haber, Boeing On the 787, a performance support system will be built into the airplane. Jeff's presentation discusses how that technology can be leveraged for training. It also discusses the type of training (classroom, CBT, simulation, etc) that will used and how it will be integrated into a comprehensive program. Simulation-Based Training and the
need for standards - Bill Ahl, Boeing. After describing Simulation Based Training, Bill's presentation asks the questions, do we need standards, and what kind? Bill suggested that the AICC develop a strategy for simulation (SBT) standards. Recap of Open discussion - Neil
Cramer Neil summarized yesterday’s discussion with his slides, with a number of action items. Use of OpenDocument Format as an
Underlying Format for Interactive Learning Content -
Robby Robson, Eduworks Robby's presentation discussed an old problem - A common way for the exchange of interactive learning content would be valuable. A new approach was described - XML SCORM Studio. It is now in prototype format. Robby used Breeze and Skype to connect to Christy who demonstrated use of this new prototype tool. . |
| If you have questions, suggestions, or problems with this website, please post to the Forum |
| Last Updated: 25-Sep-2006 05:14:45 PM Pacific Standard Time |
| Copyright (c) AICC 1988-2006, All Rights Reserved |
