AICC Meeting Minutes

Wednesday, September 28, 2005

Metadata Working Group: Bernard Bouyt, Chairman

Recommendations for Organizing Metadata; How to Create and Document a LOM Profile: Jack Hyde for Kevin Schlipper:

Jack gave a presentation developed by Kevin Schlipper on Metadata architecture vs data model. This presentation gave a discussion of structure vs flat element data-based metadata definition. Kevin’s presentation recommended minimizing structure and maximizing the use the name-value pairs. He explained the use of the OR and its power in use of name value pairs. Jack (for Kevin) then discussed the use of OR in the name value pairs with a (bar/pipe). This will require parsers to interpret this and may be problematic. Bill reiterated the importance of metadata but discussed the problems of Oring. He said it is up to the user to parse this but not make it part of XSD or schema validation. Bill and Jack both feel that the schema should not be depended on to validate the metadata. There was a discussion on why using the pipe (bar) and handling the parsing in other ways.

Jack asked for an example of a DTD or XSD that shows the flexibility of the Pipe without using the Pipe. Niccolo will do this.

Lenny asked the question of the need to worry about IE5 which is not supported by Microsoft. AICC should change the Hardware/Software AGR to recommend no use of IE5. NWA and Boeing said they still have IE5 dependent content.

AI: (Ed Cohen) Bring up changes to Platform AGR and discuss recommendations for not using IE5.

AI: (Jack and Kevin, Steve Forth, Mark McCauly). Expand on Kevins presentation with specific examples with less structure and less hierarchy. More flexibility without category name. Jack will work with Kevin to come up specific recommendations to flatten the structure of the document that Jack has developed and will show at the next meeting. XML fragment reflecting the current LOM and XML fragment reflecting the new structure. Jack will contact Steven Forth to get input from him and his collegues.

Briefing on SumTotal’s Acquisition of Pathlore: Lenny Greenberg, Pathlore
Lenny discussed why SumTotal acquired Pathlore. All wanted to be the top provided in the space to become a $100M revenue company. The LMS is an enterprise application that organizations know that they need. Because of this organization have expectations: 24-7 support, enterprise level, and innovations in the product. Lenny gave background on SumTotal and Pathlore. Lenny showed the consolidation that resulted in SumTotal which includes Docent, Click2Lean, and Pathlore (which aquired DK systems). Lenny discussed the complementary markets that resulted in the consolidation of Pathlore and Sumtotal. Lenny says that companies want to consolidate the management systems of their various organizations/components. Lenny will remain in the role of looking ahead. Lenny said that the AICC standard works today and provides the stability in the industry

AICC Metadata Guidelines (extensions to IEEE LOM): Jack Hyde

Metadata Guideline Document Review:

Jack reviewed his document and encouraged comments. This document will form the basis of the AICC profile of the LOM. Jack noted that there are no data type definitions and will discuss later. Bill reiterated that our approach is to use the LOM and extend it. Jack described the Data Model Table which is part of his document and is a tabular overview of the metadata descriptions defined later in the document Jack has added a size column to describe the number of instances of the metadata element (e.g., Language 10 vs SPM 10). Jack discussed the LOM column which denotes if we do not use the LOM element, have changed the LOM element, is the same as the LOM element, or is.a partial change of the LOM element Then he covered specific sections of the document where he wanted to highlight points or had questions. Jack then reviewed his layout of the metadata element.

There was a long discussion on course aggregation hierarchy and how it should/can be used. Jack thinks this is outside the scope of the Metadata. This is not an aggregation problem but a cataloging function that applies to hierarchy structure.

AI: (Jack). Incorporate the recommendation to identify how the AICC Metadata Guidelines (LOM) are different from Dublin Core and SCORM Ask Norm Frision (CANCORE website) how he handles this in his international standard for Metadata.

There were concerns raised about too much divergence between AICC and SCORM. Jack said we are developing an AICC profile of the IEEE LOM. He than would work with ISO (bypass IEEE) and try to influence ISO to adopt the new data elements.

After lunch Jack reviewed the Educational Metadata that was developed by the AICC Metadata Working Group.

AI: (Jack). Expand the Eduational Interactivity Type to expand to emphasize to emphasize this is between student and content and not content and LMS.

AI: (Jack) Tom King requested that Jack consider guidance in the best practices document to identify the difference between Duration and Typical Learning Time and ideas for default values. Jack thinks some of these requests could be in the LOM element comment section. Incorporate the example from SkillSoft, Mark McCauley, in development of guidance. Bill thinks Jack should just pick one. Jack should make a recommendations on this.

AI: (Jack) Tom King thinks Jack should refer to specifications/standards be used for the Accessibility LOM element with attributes with compliance tag, e.g., accessiblilty standard with corresponding compliance tags.

AI: (Jack) Bill would like Jack to consider a method to segment off just the aviation specific information. Much of the LOM is very useful to a non-aviation audience and it would be useful to incorporate this audience notion with different sets of values. In the Catalog show the LOM elements that would match the audience. Look at the Med-biciquitous LOM profile for medicine.

There was a discussion on audience vs competencies; then competency derived from the objective. Ed Cohen emphasized that metadata should have things that drive decisions for people. There are other things rather than audience you would search on rather than pilot or flight crew (such as phase of flight). Ed discussed the amount of metadata you needed to keep for vocabulary. Jack recommended that you make intended audience with a STRING and a list of recommended audiences. Use a field or some other method to search for audience. This discussion continued for quite a while. Ed thinks for the Educational Audience field the Vocab should be at a higher level (technical, general, certification). Bernard says that there is a way that you need to categorize content, i.e. A320 FLIGHT. If Audience was changed, Bernard said we would still need the Audience data somewhere. No resolution except what Bernard said, which is this data needs to be somewhere.

There was a question of why you are adding objectives, what would it be used for, would LMS/LCMS use it. The answer was that objectives would be used for searching.

Idea raised to encourage AICC to define metadata in a way that it is easily and uniformly applied to a learning object. Would be useful to have a process for mining the metadata from the content.

SCORM – AICC documentation differences
Jack displayed the section in the SCORM document on metadata. Shows how SCORM handles elements. He identified an area in SCORM that is not in the AICC document and asked if it should be in AICC. One area is identification of mandatory elements. Jack likes the SML examples for category and data elements in the SCORM. Jack would like to put the SCORM examples in our document but it is better to keep bindings separate from examples. Do we want the examples in a separate document or put in our document. The information in SCORM is informative not normative and rather pseudo code. ADL had a problem that had an example that was meant to be informative but was used. This caused problems. Decision to use similar examples but make sure that identify as informative not normative.

Jack discussed how LOM uses lang string. He also described another method. He thinks that we can use another way to use lang strings in another way.

Jack reviewed his specific questions on SCORM. He discussed the use of SCORM examples, using SCORM names, associating LOMv1.0 with many data elements. He got answers to several questions but will think about the reference to LOMV1.0 in association with data elements. He went over more questions: Max Number of Occurences (should they be changed from what is in the LOM), use of Objective ID (did not have a catalog entry), Objective type, use of Requirements and orComposite. Jasck discussed OrComposite. Jack thinks orComposite is cumbersome and recommends to use Kevin’s OR approach to platform requirements to use a long string with bar’s (l). Would need a super-parser for this. Jack has another possibility to list of types in orComposites. Result of discussion was that this is a lot of work. Tom thinks this could be in a string in human readable form that could be read. Mike thinks the requirements data could be in an informational string in human readable form. Tom King thinks we should refer to an AICC AGR. Mike thinks you should extend the orComposite to represent the AICC AGR. Tom thinks this could be done with a best practice.

Applicability vs Relation vs Classification:

Problem is to describe some aircraft relationships: A/C families, A/C names, FIN number (ID number or part number or component identification number), ATA identifications, engine types, unit, A/C zones, flight phases, effectivity.

AI: (Bernard) Send a better description of what a FIN is to Jack.

Jack showed examples of how you could exend Classification purpose to include aircraft relationships (like aircraft families – his example). Jack wants us to consider other possibilities. In an example, Jack extended the LOM made up a Relation category called Applicability. He added a Kind (of relation) with tokens such as is part of, has part of, etc (see his document), a Resource (such as 737, 39.14.2), catalog, entry, description. He created an example to show how it might look. Learning object will reference something, in an AICC catalog for an A/C family, with a langstring with B737. (see his presentation for the XML). Jack thinks this is clumsy. He thinks we should create a Category call applicability with type (A/C family or ATA chapter number, etc) with an entry (B737 and/or A320). . Bill said to consider this Applicability category to isolate the aviation related data (could remove the need for specific audience).

AI: (Jack). Discuss modifying the Metadata spec to use the concept of applicability and remove Audience in the RO working group.

Highlights of TechLearn: Jason G. Fish, ELBD Services

Jason is the TechLearn conference chairman. He described that TechLearn has a more immediacy, what is here or 1-2 years down stream. There were 50 or more vendor slots. Good vendor traffic with a specific vendor format. Attendee numbers – 800 paid last year vs 1500 walking around; this year 550 or so paid. Jason thinks we can help to benefit each other. Gaming and simulations were the highest attended sessions. A lot of conversation about open source. A lot of government, academic, and corporate attendees. There were a lot of sessions on rapid development and rapid delivery. TechLearn, Sept. 10-13 2006, at Mandalay Bay. He suggested going to a web site call GROKKER in place of Google.

AICC Executive Committee Meeting
Scott Bergstrom and Neil Cramer called in to executive committee meeting via a meet me number arranged by Yvonne Johnson. Breeze was used to share the AICC Presentation while changes were suggested. The following issues were discussed at the AICC executive meeting:

· AICC Financials: Scott reviewed the financials.

· Discussion on Participation in Learning 2005 and Review of AICC Presentation

The new AICC Presentation was reviewed. This presentation will be given at Learning 2005 in Orlando, Fla (Oct. 31-Nov. 2). Tom King, Ed Cohen, and Neil Cramer will be attending. Neil Cramer will give the AICC presentation with assistance from Tom and Ed. All the following comments will be sent to Yvonne for incorporation into the presentation. Yvonne will send the updated presentation to the executive committee.

Here are some of the changes

· Add that AICC was founded in 1988 added. Change the word AICC milestone timeline to a graphical representation

· Add logos for all the members. There is a ppt around somewhere with many of the logos.

· Add who participates (IT, Designers, Manufacterers)

· Replace AICC accomplishments with information from Ed’s slice. Use a graphical representation of the timeline.

· Incorporate portions of the FAQ’s on the AICC website into the ppt. This will need some pazazz added but the information is very good.

· Slide for recent meetings and future meetings (add some of Neil’s photos)

· Add a slide that says “How many of you are interested in mobile training”. Neil to talk about the latest AICC specification and how it helps formal training.

Tom suggested getting some airlines to the symposium. Jet Blue is there. Kris Rockwell has a contact at Jet Blue and will extend an invitation to the Learning 2005; Kris will get the symposium info from Tom King Kris will also contact Gary Morrison about the meeting and see if he wants to attend. AICC members can attend for free. Scott may have a contact at Delta. Anne will contact Scott and ask him to send the contact name to Tom King

· AICC Elections in January 2006: Scott to contact Bombardier and see if they will continue to send a representative. There are several executive positions open and we need to solicit candidates who are interested in running for executive committee members-at-large.

Thursday, September 29, 2005

Chairman’s Report: Bernard Bouyt, AICC Chairman
Bernard Bouyt, AICC Chairman, reviewed the results of the executive committee meeting.

Finances: Bernard reviewed the finances; current income is down but Scott believes that the cash reserves will be replenished after the latest round of invoices.

AICC Presentation: Bernard discussed the AICC Presentation. Yvonne has created a draft presentation. It was reviewed

Upcoming Elections: Bernard discussed the AICC Elections in January 2006. He asked for nominations for open positions. There was a nomination from the floor for Dave Jacobsen to be an Air Frame Manufacturer at large.

Future meetings
San Diego: Jan 30 - Feb 3, 2006 hosted by Macromedia/Adobe

Moscow: Jun 26-30, 2006 (tentative dates) hosted by Aeroflot.

Vancouver: Sept. 11-15, 2006 hosted by Pelesys

Phoenix or Santiago: Jan 2007 hosted by Honeywell or LANChile

Florence, Italy: June 2007 hosted by Giunti and Capitalia Informatica

Extending AICC and SCORM based learn eXact LCMS for Mobile and Wearable Training in Avionics: Niccolo Giaccone, One Finity, Inc,

Niccolo gave a brief overview of the One Finity company, a Giunti Labs certified partner. He describe eXact Mobile. He showed the reference model for the Learn eXact product. The eXact Mobile allows the designer, developer to create extensions to the Learn eXact product for mobile learning. Niccolo describe the components of eXact Mobile. He described the viewers for the mobile devices to download and deliver the content on-line, and synchronize when the device gets online.

Niccolo showed the way content would look on the mobile device. The SCORM Navigation and Tracking engine is used on the mobile device. However, the content source can be either AICC or SCORM eXact content. Open Mobile Abstract Framwork (OMAF) developed by Giunti is a service access framework, is fully document, and has a UML for presentation. Niccolo described the framework and services.

Three examples of research projects were presented.

· NATACHA project – air and airport based access to information repositories. Content uploaed to aircraft and delivered to both aircraft and airport.

· WEARIT@WORK - a research project on wearable industrial training. This investigates how wearable technology can improve operators job. Scenarios: removal and installation of components, troubleshooting, and inspection. Creates a maintenance jacket with integrated wearable technologies.

· itutor Project: wearable computer integrated with a micro display. It uses eye tracking and voice recognition. This used the OMAF technology. The eye tracking component was not robust enough and was replaced with voice recognition. Eye tracking technology was used to identify areas of the screen (via eye tracking) and bring up additional information.

Web sites for the research projects can be found by contacting GianCarlo Bo (see last slide in the presentation); information on the Natacha project can be found at Natachaweb.org,.

CMI Working Group: Bill McDonald, Chairman

Bill reviewed the presentations/work to be done today.

Update on the XML and Service Enhancement to HACP API Relay Project: Ed Cohen, Plateau

Ed presented some ideas at the Helsinki meeting to resolve problems related to tracking content, cross-domain issue. Ed reviewed what he thought was important in this enhancement: Do not use backward compatibility, solve the cross domain issue, increase the configurability of how you deploy content, reduce the compatibility issues between content and LMS/CMI (remove the problems with initial communication problems between content and LMS, ie out of the box).

Ed described the cross domain problem and described a method to change the flow of communication. Ed described the implications of his plan including the downside ramifications which are very small. Ed discussed the LMS to Relay Service Communication in detail. Ed wants to have prototypes by the January AICC meeting. Mark McCauley, Skillsoft, discussed some use scenarios that may have problems with this methodology. Ed discussed possible solutions to the problems raised. Ed said that there are several other issues that need to be addressed and asked for persons interested in working on this project. George Urich said that VTN may be interested in providing the .net version of the relay service.

Ed gave an update on the progress. There are currently 3 software vendors involved and would like an Oct. 10th meeting for PENS (separate issue) and XML interface. Ed would like a first draft out by November. Ed thinks the new architecture will also allow the ability for PENS to deploy content in the same manner.

Tom King said IMS is publishing some guidelines for web services. Spec is due in January. AICC should track that spec.

Jack asked that we come up with a name for this procject. It will be called: Simplified Deployment Architecture (SDA) will be the title of the project.

AI: (Tom King) Tom will contact Phil Dodds at ADL and tell him what we are doing.

AI: (Ed Cohen) Ed will have a draft document ready for review at the next meeting.

XML Communication for CMI (on agenda as Results of Loose XSD vs CMI001 .ini Plain Text): Jack Hyde, AICC

Jack will cover the following: Overview of Project, Review of Document, Schema Decisions, and then Questions for the group.

Jack discussed why we need an XML format for the communication. In discussing the offline CMI communication, there was talk of an envelop in XML with the data in the envelop in HACP .ini format. It was thought why write a HACP parser; it would be better to create an XML representation of the data.

Why call it a loose XSD? XSD can define data types precisely. The IEEE has an XSD for their CMI data model. The IEEE data model was very complex (does message content conformance) so it was suggested to make a far simpler XSD to make usable XML messages and not do testing. Jack also noted that interactions would be a nightmare for conformance testing. The schema is very complicated. Solution would be to make all interactions strings and write a test suite to test for conformance of the messages.

AI: (Anne) Get a unique document number for the XML Communication for CMI.

Jack reviewed the document. The document is posted on the AICC web site as part of the meeting presentations.

AI: (Jack) Add a 4th column indicating whether the data goes to LMS or to CMI or both ways on your table. Bill asked that Jack change the table to make course ID optional and add a column for AU obligation.

Jack reviewed the Communication Schema. Kevin Schlipper developed this chapter (Thank you Kevin). Jack then review the Communication DTD and then the examples. Content to CM and CMI to Content.

Bill will post the document on the web site. Jack asked that members review it and send feedback to Jack. CMI is a subsystem of the LMS and could be a subsystem of many other types of systems.

AI: (Jack) We need to create a set of definitions that define what CMI means in this environment which is limited to the communication between content and the LMS.

Tom asked about how SOAP friendly this XML Communication for CMI document is

AI: (Jack) will check with Kevin on the SOAP friendliness of the XML Communication document. This binding needs to be SOAP compatible.

AI: (Jack and Kevin) Jack and Kevin call Eric Roberts from Question Mark and Mark McCauley for a person (SOAP expert) to review the document for SOAP compatibility.

Jack raised a session journal question. Kevin thinks the API names (name the developers and users familiar with) should be used in place of the generic data model names (clearer expression of what was meant). Jack asked which names should be used. Tom King thinks there may be Best Practices written for web services that may dictate what these names should be. Mark McCauley, SkillSoft, thinks the API names example is the best approach for a rewrite of the communication methods. Jack said they he would use Data Model name Session Journal vs the API method name.

Jack requested that if any one knows a why in the DTD to express any order. Tom recommended to remove the DTD chapter; this will resolve the problem of people doing DTD and others doing XSD.

AI: (Jack) Jack will remove the DTD chapter.

Discussion on correspondence from Giunti Labs concerning Giunti, IMS, and AICC working jointly on an XML representation of AICC Course Structure.

Bernard Bouyt (AICC Chair), Jean-Louis Bravo, Jack Hyde, Bill McDonald, and Anne Montgomery meet briefly to discuss an email from Giunti concerning a cooperative venture to develop an XML AICC Content Package. The letter was reviewed and discussed. Bernard will draft a response next week indicating AICC interest but outlining some of the AICC constraints with respect any licensing agreements, scope of the effort, and AICC participation.

Harbinger's Offline Content Player - Elearning in Disconnected Mode: Shrikant Pattathil & Vikas Joshi, Harbinger Systems

Vikas Joshi gave a talk on Technology Innovations from Harbinger Group. Vikas discussed the offline player and a new product, the Elicitus Interactivity Builder. He demoed the activity builder.

The offline player has been implement at NWA, Tata Group in India, and Harbinger has also released Bersion 2.0. Vikas briefly describe each of the implementations. The Tata Group implementation worked with SCORM content.

Vikas then discussed what is new in Version 2.0 and the roadmap going forward including SCORM 2004 content, Unicode, ASP hosted LMS providers, content copy protection, Section 508 (Accessability) compliance. Vikas noted that there is a greater interest in offline content presentation. Harbinger seeks approval of the specification based on CMI009.

Elicitus Interactivity Builder is a rapid authoring platform. Vikas discussed the ability to put together content without programming. The challenge is that learners want interactivity but it is expensive to build. There is a missing piece between the instructional design and the programmer being able to build what the designer had envisioned. There is a new paradigm in authoring that uses instructionally sound patterns of human computer interaction to build content. The tool works by the ID using a template interactivity pattern and customizes it to the design the ID desires. Vikas gave a demonstration of the Elicitus tool. Elicitus has defined many categories of interactivity

Elicitus has no navigation external to the interaction. Elicitus supports AICC, SCORM 1.2, and SCORM

1.4 compliance. There is an Elicitus SlideConverter to move .ppts to Elcitus, and an Interactivity Builder, Content Publisher, and Progress Tracker.

Elicitus is priced on a per-seat cost. The cost is $2500 per seat. Elicitus needs the Flash run-time on the developer suite. There is a 30 day free trial on the Elicitus web site, www.elicitus.com.

Offline CMI Specification: Shrikant Pattahil, Harbinger Systems

Shirkant reviewed changes to the Offline CMI specification: data model-student, data model-offline, data-course, data model – progress (there was a very long discussion on this data model element), data model – package. Shirkant showed a slide with the whole data model. Shirkant showed the messages between the offline and the LMS.

Shirhant address the open issues with respect to PENS, Support for XML and INI, and use of XDS vs DTD. Tom thinks there are still PENS issues wrt the zip file.

AI (Jack and Shirkant) Jack will put the zip file into a separate specification and Shirkant will reference it. Here are the document number: CMI011 for XML Data Model and CMI012 for the Packaging Specification

Friday, September 30, 2005

Blogs and Wikis: Tom King, Macromedia

Tom started with a definition of Blogs and Wikis as defined in Wikipedia. Macromedia has a corporate Blog. Blog formats vary. RSS / Atom /XML: RSS (Rich Site Summary, RDF Site Summary, Really Simple Syndication) is a family of file formats for web syndication. Blogs have a syndication feed. Wiki is a live open document on the internet. Anyone can edit the page. Tom will edit the definition of AICC. Because everyone can edit on a Wikipedia site, there is a self-policing function to keep the accuracy of the content.

Tom talked about the Hype Cylce for Collaboration and Communication – Technology Trigger, Peak of Expectations, Trough of Disillusionment, Scope of Enlightenment, Plateau of Productivity.. Virtual Classroom will be obsolete because it will be rolled into the attributes of meetings.

Tom has a link in his presentation to an interesting article on blogs, wikis, and knowledge.

Tom described Wikis and edited the Wikipedia entry on AICC. Tom added additional categories. Tom then discussed Blogs and He put together an AICC News Blog at http://aiccnewsblog.blogspot.com/. Blogs are set up so that the last post appears first. Tom reviewed the methods to create and use blogs. Tom has a list of web sites of interest in his presentation. He also shows common Blog Host and Client Software.

Tom discussed the relevance of Blogs to AICC: news & announcement, means to allow publishing my more than the webmaster. Wiki for white papers, working drafts, and glossaries. Wiki our AICC Glossary and Meeting Agendas.

AI: (Bill) Determine if there is Wiki software available for the AICC website. This could be used for the AICC Glossary and perhaps the preliminary AICC Meeting Agendas. If software is available and cheap, Jack and Anne will work on setting up the Glossary and Agenda.

Simulation and Smart Graphics Update: Kris Rockwell, Hybrid Systems and Sebastien Fraysse, I-COMPONENT

Smart Grapics Subcommittee update and a presentation on Smart Graphics by Sebastien Fraysse

AI: (Kris and Bill Shook) At next meeting give an overview of what’s going on with simulation and ID.at ITSEG

AI: (Kris and Bill McDonald) Add a Simulation and Smart Graphics Blog and a Smart Graphics board on the AICC website.

Kris presented a Smart Graphics roadmap create jointly by himself and Sebastien. Kris will try to get a white paper draft by the next meeting. Kris discussed the goals and objectives: Definition, (Kris thinks we should change the name Smart Graphic to Smart Object), Implementation (how to get the information from the subject matter experts into the tool), Development (including a test lab). Kris discussed what we want to avoid.

Sebastien was ill but sent a presentation. He recommended the concept of a smart object composed of smart graphics and a smart model.

Kris discussed the next steps and presented some ideas why the smart object is a good approach. Kris is using gaming technologies to make his smart graphic into a smart object. His customer has taken their software to communicate with the virtual box (his smart graphic) which is a smart object now. He has a smart graphic with a broker engine on the back and has created a smart object. There was a lively discussion on use of technologies that form the underpinning of the concept.

AI Kris: Send your paper on these concepts to Bill to post with the AICC meeting presentations.

Issues Important to Airlines: AICC Best Practices and Issues Related to Training –Open Discussion for White Paper: Bernard Bouyt, Airbus and Tom King, Macromedia

Bernard reviewed the history of Issues Important to Airlines. Bernard reviewed the Plan: context, examples, technical aspects, consequences. The official language of the airlines is English. There were discussions about Simplified English, which has complicated rules for application. These principles sometimes result in something more difficult to understand than non-Simplified English. There is a good IETF page which gives guidance for language issues. Kari described his problem – all he knows that a lesson has been changed, he really needs a more granular set of change notifications. Dave Jacobson said that Boeing can provide change lists but there is a limit on how many back versions those lists are kept. Kari said he would like to see at least the granular changes between the current version and the previous version.

Would be good to get a list of questions on issues important to airlines. We need to get this information to CAT magazine.

AI: Anne, Bernard Questions on areas of interest to airlines, that promote discussion. Future of paper documentation for both the aircraft and training. Trainees complain if they don’t have paper. Survey Monkey to fill out survey to get data back. List of survey topics. Small survey and ask for additional information “what are the issues that are your concerns?”

What is the position of organizations for distance learning (without instructors) especially tests. This is another issue that AICC might try to get information about. Bill said there was a presentation on this at WATS. FAA is looking into modifying some regulations. Would be nice for airlines to provide their input.

Issues Important to Airlines: Best Practice Considerations for Development when Supporting Multiple Protocol Environments: Tom King, Macromedia

Tom King gave a presentation on Best Practice Considerations for Development when Supporting Multiple Protocol Environments. Tom discusses issues, packaging, parallel support (grandfathering, etc), architecture options. Many organizations may need to publish content to track from multiple systems. This is being address via archives for multiple profiles, e.g. take a SCORM compliant package and add AICC course interchange files, etc, in addition to the IMS manififest and SCORM files 1.2 and SCOMR 2004. There may be file collision problems in some cases (SCORM 1.2 and SCORM 2004). Tom pointed out packaging considerations including handling widows, orphans, cousins in unified packages. Tom discussed Architecture Options including mixing lessons with different versions (SCORM 2004 and SCORM 1.2 and AICC) which requires parallel support in the LMS.

AI: Anne, Jack: Create draft outline/white paper for Best Practices.