AICC Subcommittee Working Group Meeting
Meeting Minutes
June 27 - July 1,  2005
Helsiniki, Finland

Monday, June 27, 2005

CMI Working Group / Independent Test Lab - Bill McDonald, Chairman

Bill review the agenda for the CMI working group and gave an overview of the areas to be discussed including Overview of CMI Version 4.0.  He also introduced some ideas to be presented by Ed Cohen on Replacement of the AICC Course Structure and an XML-based mechanism to replace HACP

Bill discussed the AICC SCORM Convergence issues.  The desire is to share common specifications.  There might be convergence but may not be on current SCORM release version.  Possible convergence vehicles could be the IEEE specification with AICC extensions or an ISO specification.

Bill then discussed the AICC CMI Test Suite, which will test both API and HACP.  He is looking at VB.net applications and support of client based tests.  He also described the AICC sample lesson noting that he has added a Flash MX example (using native HACP in an action script with some limitation).  This is on the AICC website.

Bill then gave an overview of the PENS (Packaging and Exchange Notification Services) concept and noted that the specification would be voted on during this weeks meetings.  Bill also described the CMI Offline Player Specification to allow nomadic users disconnected use of an LMS.  He noted that Shirkant would discuss some specification issues later in the day.

XML and Service Enhancement to HACP API Method and More - Ed Cohen, Plateau

Ed presented his thoughts on updating HACP and the AICC Course Structure Files into a more modern architecture.  He identified several important goals in going forward with enhancements to the specification:

Do not lose backward compatibility with HACP, SCORM 1.2 and SCORM 2004 content

Solve the cross-domain issue

Increase the configurability of the standard without introducing more complexity

Reduce the compatibility issues between content and LMS/CMI

Ed then identified the problems with the existing approach and concluded that the paradigm we (and SCORM) are currently working under is outdated.  He then proposed a better approach and discussed it in detail.  Please refer to his presentation for a very detailed description of the approach.

Ed summarized the value of the approach and the implications.  Ed then had a question and answer period.  Tom King asked how this could work on content delivered on a cell phone.  Ed showed how this would work.  Ed proposed to change the API service to and HACP-API Relay.  The service could be written in anything (.net, VB, JavaScript).  All is does is a translation of SCORM to XML or act as a HACP listener.  Ed emphasized that the service does not have to sit on the same physical box as the content server but just be on the same domain.  Ed said to concentrate on the communication (the data) not standards and use existing standards to communicate.  Ed also suggested using the PENS model to assemble a group of AICC vendors to put together a strawman.  Target the results at the Jan 2006 meeting.  The working principle would be tier participation, get the requirements, and establish a small group to work the problem.

AI – Ed Cohen – Present and update of the XML and Service Enhancement to HACP API Relay project at the next meeting.

There were several questions about Ed’s approach.  He was asked to rework his concept diagrams and present them latter in the meeting.  Also discussed were votes on the PENS AGR and the AICC Checklist AGR.  Time was set aside on Tuesday afternoon at 4:00 to take the votes and have Ed go over his reworked diagrams..

PENS Update – Tom King, Macromedia

Tom King reviewed the PENS project goals, status, and specification changes since Jan. 2005, document review, and next steps.  He noted that the document is available on the AICC web site.  Tom reviewed the changes to the document based on reviewer comments (see his presentation on the AICC web site).  It was agreed to vote on the  PENS AGR013 and document CMI010 on Tuesday afternoon.  It was also decided to vote on the AICC Checklist AGR012 at the same time.

Similarity between PENS and the Offline Player – Jack Hyde, AICC

Jack discussed •PENSs goals, •Offline CMI functionality,  How PENS might fit, and identified minor problems.  He noted that a course package (PENS AICC Package) could be called on offline course package.  Jack discussed minor problems with this. 

PENS message are more extensive and complicated than may be needed for Offline CMI (11 required & 7 optional data elements vs. 2). 

PENS message would need the addition of Student ID (current data model does not include this element but the package-url-user-id may be stretched to cover offline instance)

Additional messages are required by PENS

Error response by Offline to original notice

Receipt command by Offline after successful collection of the package

LMS acknowledgement of receipt to Offline

 He noted Offline Specification synchronization ID’s out of scope for PENS but would need to remain in an Offline CMI spec (this would only be applicable as the initial communication message). 

AI – Jack Hyde – Contact Offline CMI vendors to look at PENS data elements to determine if some would be useful in the Offline CMI specification.

Jack asked “Should AICC pursue this course?”  Current consensus was that Offline CMI should continue with the current approach.  Tom King asked for the Offline CMI to consider an additional use case:  Running offline content over a cell phone; start on the phone and finish on a laptop and how would you synchronize.  Jack said it is the decision of the LMS vendor to determine synchronization priorities.

Offline CMI Specification – Shrikant Pattathil, Harbinger

Shirkant review additions to the Offline CMI specification as a result of the last meeting:  Chapter 3:  Offline CMI Data Model and Chapter 6:  Offline CMI Manifest.  This was not an immediate requirement and complicates the specification.  Shirkant recommended removing the chapters and on one disagreed this recommendation.

Shirkant discussed the current Offline binding text/XML vs a recommended binding HTTP text/plain.  The Offline CMI Specification refers to CMI001 which uses .ini plain text.  XML is easier to parse.  Shirkant recommends using CMI001.ini plain text and then adapt XML when the CMI binding is updated in the specifications.  Several pros and cons were discussed.  Several suggestions were put forth:  use XML and let the XML generate an .ini and include in the spec an XSL file to do the translation,;  go with the .ini text now and wait until Ed’s work is done and use the web services data model approach when it is ready, put into an XSD vs DTD format, can use XML spy to generate an XSD.  Jack thinks the XML will be needed.  Several others provided opinions and discussion followed.  Bill said there is a trade-off between expediency and longer range plans and it is a wash right now.    Bill and Ed discussed that if work is done here to put out a full XML structure, it can be used for web services.  If data is in an XSD format and anticipating the service model down the road, this will be simpler.  Jack said an XSD for student data should be a separate document and the offline player would refer to it.  Tom King recommended evaluating the IEEE data model.  Bill disagreed.  Ed side there is a subset of the data model that would be relevant and should be looked at.  Jack said that the Claude (IEEE) XSD was very complex but AICC could do a simpler one.  Bill agreed with Jack and said any validation should be simpler.  They talked about loose XSD vs strict XSD.  Shirkant said the loos and strict will complicate the process. 

AI – Jack Hyde, AICC and Kevin Schlipper, EEDO Knowledgeware:  Work on a loose XSD looking at it and select the best of it or .ini.  Put the loose XSD into another document.  Put on the website before the next meeting (Sept. 28-30 in Las Vegas in conjuction with TechLearn) and discuss at the next meeting.

Next, Shirkant talked about synchronization.  Currently, the spec allows LMS and Offline Player to synchronize offline progress data of multiple users’ over a single command.  There is an issue with this:  Security concerns raised by IT departments.  Shirkant discussed synchronization ID and AICC_SID.  He gave approaches for work-arounds.  His suggested approach was to remove Synchronization ID from the spec and let the LMS identify the uploaded progress data by using a composite key of student id, course id, and Module/AU id

AI – Shirkant Pattathil, Harbinger:  Remove Synchronization approach and have date/time be universal time.  Also look at PENS closer and identify any possible critical items as result of common need to use the PENS scheme for expiration date.

SCORM vs AICC Differences Document - Jack Hyde, AICC

Jack has created a partial SCORM-AICC differences document.  This is a document the identifies the differences between the 2 documents:  SCORM RTE vs AICC Communication, SCORM Content Aggregation Model vs AICC Course Structure, SCORM Sequencing and Navigation vs AICC Sequencing.

The current incomplete document is on the web site.  Here is an example of the detail.

Learner ID vs Core.Student Id

AI – Jack Hyde, AICC:  Finish and post the SCORM vs. AICC Differences document.  Review at the next meeting.

AI – Anne Montgomery, AICC:  Next meeting agenda items: 

Tom King to give a presentation on Blogs & Wikis. 

Bernard Bouyt to give presentation on issues that are important to airlines.

January Meeting agenda items

Ed Cohen to collect use cases for the new web services communication method. 

Contact vendors to build API Adapter and Relay for HACP, AICC API, and SCORM API.  Remove the 4 files for AICC CSF and put into XML. Get working prototypes with plan to have a spec in 1 year.  Present at meeting.

AICC Executive Committee Meeting

There was an AICC Executive Committee meeting following the regular meeting.  The areas discussed were:

Financials:  Scott passed out the existing financial data.  Cash on hand about same as cash on hand last year. 

Executive Committee Vacancies:  There are 2 subcommittee vacancies:  Communication (Tom Bolton has been ill) and Smart Graphics and Simulation (currently 2 committee co-chairs and Michele Asmar no longer attending meetings) have openings.  Discussed the need for a Communication Chairman and Mike Sharp will work communications with other executive committee members on an interim basis.  Kris Rockwell (Simulation and Smart Graphics co-chair) will take over subcommittee responsibilities.

AICC and Halldale:  There is an opportunity to do things with Halldale:  publishing articles, keep what we are doing in the for-front.  Scott and Anne did a brief meeting synopsis and provided a list of companies attending the meeting.  Scott gave the synopsis to Mike Sharp to pass on to Halldale.  In addition develop a set of certified vendors success stories.  Provide articles on web services and offline player to Halldale.

Meetings:  Ed Cohen who was a co-host for the September meeting raised a problem.  Jerry Sparks, FAA, who was co-hosting has retired.  In addition, the meeting occurs at the same time as TechLearn in Las Vega.  Several discussions occurred about what to do including offering to let Pelesys host the meeting in Vancouver.  Because of the short notice Pelesys could not commit to that week so AICC will host the meeting and co-locate it in conjunction with the end of TechLearn in Las Vegas to allow attendance at both AICC and TechLearn. 

The Executive Committee agreed on the following future meeting dates:

Las Vegas, NV, Sept 28-Sept 30, 2005 hosted AICC

San Diego, CA, Jan 30 – Feb. 3, 2006 hosted by Macromedia

Moscow, Russia, June 26-June 30, 2006 hosted by Aeroflot

Vancouver, BC, Sept. 11 – Sept. 15, 2006 hosted by Pelesys

Santiago, Chile, January, 2007, hosted by LanChile (tentative)

Florence Italy, late May, 2007, hosted by GIUNTI Interactive Labs and Capitalia Informatica

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.

Other:  Bernard Bouyt discussed his attendance at an IATA meeting in Brussels 4 weeks ago.  He mentioned that most of the presentations were on SCORM.  There was much discussion about this.  The result was the need to publicize the current work of AICC in various publications.

Tuesday, June 28, 2005

Welcome from Finnair -Juha Siivonen, VP Flight Training, Finnair

The VP of Finnair Flight Training gave a warm welcome and a short presentation on the Finnair training organization.

Executive Committee Report and Introduction to Airlines Day  - Bernard Bouyt, AICC Chairman

Bernard reviewed the results of the executive committee meeting.  He

Finntastic Training - Captain Tapani Toppari, Finnair

Captain Toppari gave a very interesting presentation on training at Finnair. He describe the organization, aircraft, and training.

Is the Industry Ready for SCORM? - Martin Seger, Allied Visions GmbH

Martin described his current projects in the German military and civilian training.  He described the interest in SCORM by organizations that he is working with.

Flight Training Environment and Latest Projects:  Virtual Aircraft Outside Check and Virtual/Visual Cabin Familiarization - Ralf.Pfetzing & Udo Link, Lufthansa Flight Training

Lufthansa gave an overview of the Flight Training Locations and Environment.  Lufthansa discussed a interesting new project on the use a 3D product called 3D Scenery.  With just 3 camera images the product can provide a complete 3D scene.  The scene has limited zoom and detail.  Lufthansa uses this for familiarization training.

Reusable Content Object Sharing at NWA - Neil Cramer, NWA

Neil discussed training development at NWA;  multiple organizations, multiple tools and methodologies, and how the various training organizations are working together.  This is a perfect environment to encourage reusability.  Neil discussed his use of Object Oriented Development to enhance reusability.  He discussed the NWA system architecture and the Development architecture.  He discussed the AICC RLO model and how if defines levels of aggregation, instructional properties and metadata.  Neil uses the concept of topic templates and shells and Flash shared libraries.  He showed examples of the training curriculum and demonstrated his training environment.

Moscow Meeting Information – Vadim Sukhomlinov, Aeroflot

Vadim described the Moscow meeting particulars.  The meeting will take place at a new hotel in the airport area.  There is a shuttle from the airport.  The hotel provides a shuttle to Moscow which is some distance (about 1 hour).  The hotel has provides internet and a video projector.  Aeroflot will take AICC attendees on a visit of Moscow by night.  Vadim is contacting airlines in Russia and plans to invite airlines from India.  US attendees will need a Visa.

Open Discussion:  Issues That are Important to Airlines  - Bernard Bouyt, AICC Chairman

Bernard reviewed his updated list of issues important to airlines.  This engendered a lively discussion.  Several ideas for AICC publications were discussed:

Best Practices White Paper – Use of Language

Guidance for Airlines who are Starting in the Distance Learning Environment

Problem of how to package (best practices) a course that is set up to provide multi-language objecrs

AI – Anne Montgomery, AICC:  Set aside time at next meeting to discuss the above issues.

AI – Bernard Bouyt, Airbus and Tom King, Macromedia:  Set up a Breeze-moderated discussion on AICC Best Practices and Issues related to Training. 

AICC Vote to Adopt AGR011, CMI010, and AGR012

Tom King review AGR011 and reference document CMI010, PENS.  Scott called a vote and it was approved.  Mike Sharp reviewed AGR012, AICC Training Checklist.  Scott called a vote and it was approved.

XML and Service Enhancement to HACP API Method and More - Ed Cohen, Plateau

Ed reviewed his revised flow charts describing is HACP-API Relay Schema.  His presentation was widely popular  and should be reviewed (it is included on the AICC web site with his Monday presentation).  There was unanimous approval for the approach and Ed’s plans to structure his project in a manner similar to PENS.

Vendor Demonstration Period

Several vendors remained in the room after the meeting to give short personalized demonstrations of their products.

Wednesday, June 29, 2005

Online Learning as a Commitment Building Tool in Mobile Industry - Tatu Tahkokallio, Nokia

Nokia gave a very interesting presentation on mobile learning and the use of informal learning.  Tatu conjectured that a majority of the training is informal learning.

More For Less:  The Utility of Using the Critical Mistakes - Sambit Chakraborty, NIIT

Sam Chakraborty of NIIT made a presentation about using critical mistakes as a method for e-learning.  It is based on critical mistake methodology.  We learn most through our failures.  He noted eight powerful design & delivery principles (adapted from Roger Schank, 1992):

You remember best what you feel the most.

Dumb employees aren’t born; they’re made.

Deliver training just in time – when a learner has just failed and needs help.

Failure can teach just about anything.

You can teach yourself better than the world’s best trainer or highest-paid motivational speaker.

Memorization without corresponding experience is worthless.

Open your e-learning course with a bang.

Trainees should be learning from the world’s best.

He summarized by saying that learning is experiential and over multiple cases experiences are similar; therefore, critical mistakes are similar.  Using critical mistakes to learn can at any time in any time in any discipline increase efficiency if it is LEARNING BY DOING.  Humans live and work in groups – mistakes and corrections and improvements happen in groups and enhance the learning experience.  Failure can teach most of us just about anything – JIT training maximizes learning and efficiency organization-wide.

Boosting the Learning Process with Online Assessments - Omar Lahyani, Comartis AG

Omar Lahyani (Comartis AG) made a presentation about boosting the learning process with online assessments.  Training is good; verified results are better.  His company looks at quality in terms of product implementation, knowledge transfer, change in behavior (i.e., job performance), changes in key performance indicators, and profitability.  Their different levels of measurement are pre-test, online survey of learner reaction, post training learning achievement, transfer (after 3 to 6 months back on the job), and finally, the business impact evaluation (12 to 16 months after the training intervention.

Offline Player for Continued e-Learning in a Disconnected Mode - Vikas Joshi / Shrikant Pattathil, Harbinger-Systems Pvt. Ltd

Shrikant Pattahil (Harbinger) presented a case study of an offline player for e-learning in a disconnected mode.  He described the challenges and solutions they encountered.

From Learning Plaza to a DREAM - Enzo Iodice, Capitalia Informatica

Enzo Iodice (Capitalia Informatica) made a presentation of their product, the Learning Plaza.  He provided a detailed description of its architecture and showed how it is being used.

New eXact Mobile: Delivering Location Based Mobile Learning on the Learn eXact LCMS AICC/SCORM platform - GianLuca Rolandelli, GIUNTI Interactive Labs

GianLuca Rolandelli (Giunti Interactive Labs) made a presentation o exact Mobile, their product for delivering an AICC and SCORM compliant mobile learning product.  He demonstrated an application.

Thursday, June 30, 2005

Training Technology Subcommittee:  SMG for A380 - Jean-Louis Bravo, Chairman

Jean-Louis Bravo (Airbus) recapped the work done on smart graphics.  He presented  a rationale for using the .svg format.  He showed the architecture of the current smart graphic configuration used at Airbus for the A380.  He demonstrated a series of smart graphics used for the A380.  The next step will be to use smart graphics as a bridge between simulation and CBT.  He outlined a concept for SMX.

Explore the Future of Personalized Learning with Context Sensitive Learning - Neil Lasher, Trainer1 Ltd

Neil Lashet (Trainer1) made a presentation on context sensitive learning, the future of personalized learning.  He posed the question:  are we missing a huge training opportunity by not dealing with informal learning.  Various assessments of e-learning shows some problems, especially failure to complete courses.  Informal learning is a big and untapped phenomenon, especially in an information-based society.  Research is now showing that information learning is more beneficial than knowledge-based learning.  Users want a different method for retrieving what they need and therefore need to learn.  They need workflow learning or task-based learning, both delivered informally.  He introduced the concept of the learning modules of 2-, 5-, and 20-minutes with the focus on the 2-minute modules.  One of the obstacles with this technique is how we track this type of learning.  He demonstrated an application which provided context sensitive learning in short training modules.  Conclusions:  (1) informal learning deserves consideration; (2) formal learning may not be effective for everyday information; (3) learners like small modules; (4) fewer “tests”; and (5) quicker delivery.

ISO Meeting Recap - Jack Hyde, AICC   

Jack Hyde (AICC) presented a report on the ISO meeting he attended in March.  He attended WG4 (metadata), WG3 (participation information, performance metrics), and WG5 (quality assurance).  WG4 is not looking at CMI but is focusing on metadata for learning resources.  He reviewed the events of each meeting.

Learn More on How to Get to Know the Unknown with the Help of Fountain Park Web-Tools - Hanna Ali-Melkkilä, Harri Ruohomäki, & Teppo Nieminen,, Fountain Park

Hanna AliMelkkilii and Teppo Nieminen (Fountain Park) made a presentation on using the web to explore the unknown.  In an organization employees’ knowledge and perception are bounded by what they can see, what they believe, and by the organization’s power structure.  He described the signals methodology that they use to improve employee performance.  In single collection, qualitative data are obtained from users;  In signal evaluation quantitative data are collected to evaluate the importance of the qualitative data.  Then, a series of analyses are undertaken to obtain the meaning.  Reports are issues which identify strong signals, potential signals, weak signals, and no action issues (or blind spots).  He described the Idea Aquarium (IAQ) concept that they developed to implement the ideas that they uncover.  A suggestion box is inadequate for several reasons.  IAQ is a collection and search system that enables store, sharing, classification, and evaluation of ideas and innovations.  It allows for ill-defined ideas.  He demonstrated an IAQ prototype.

AI – Scott Bergstrom, AICC & Bernard Bouyt, Airbus:   Use Idea Aquarium at the next AICC Executive Committee Meeting to do strategic planning.  Set up an AICC Executive Committee meeting Breeze session to discuss this.

AICC Metadata AGR Proposal - Bernard Bouyt, Chairman

Bernard Bouyt (Airbus) led a review of a new AGR for metadata.  The subcommittee made a number of suggestions for changes.

AI –Kevin Schlipper, EEDO Knowledgeware:  Write up recommendations for organizing meta-data.  Robby Robson gave a presentation in Paris on how to get a LOM profile.  Refer to this presentation.  Present your recommendations at the next meeting.  Include how to create and document a LOM profile.

AI –Brenda Robinson, EEDO Knowledgeware:  Provide paper on taxonomy to Jack Hyde and Anne Montgomery.  Anne to send email to Brenda requesting this paper.