CMI 5 Working Group Meeting Minutes – February 10th, 2017 - AICC/CMI-5_Spec_Current GitHub Wiki
cmi5 Working Group Meeting Minutes – February 10th, 2017
Attendees
- Bill McDonald - cmi5 working group leader
- Andy Johnson – ADL
- Art Werkenthin - RISC, inc
- Ben Clark – Rustici Software
- Brian Miller – Rustici Software
- Charles Touron – USARMY CAC
- Dennis Hall - eLearning Templates
- Christopher Thompson – Medcom Inc.
- Giovanni Sorrentino – E-CO e-Learning Studio
- David Pesce - Exputo
- Ray Lowery - Pratt & Whitney
Notes
The group continued to work on a SCORM vs cmi5 comparison document. More refinement was done on the tables, removing "rationale" and consolidating comments.
The document's current draft is as follows:
SCORM is a technical standard developed by Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative (ADL) over 16 years ago that governs how online learning content and Learning Management Systems (LMSs) communicate with each other. It is the mature de facto industry standard for e-learning interoperability the pre-dates mobile learning and IOT.
cmi5 is a new specification that was co-developed by ADL and the Aviation Industry Computer-Based Training Committee (AICC). This new specification defines how "LMSs launch content" using the Experience API (xAPI) as the content-to-LMS communication layer. cmi5 builds upon the lessons learned from AICC and SCORM specifications, address the limitations of each, and adds new capabilities. cmi5 uses xAPI which was designed with both traditional and non-traditional learning methods (Social, Mobile, Simulations, VR etc.) in mind. cmi5's use of xAPI enables the development of interoperable features well beyond the traditional LMS model. cmi5 is a key component of an xAPI based learning ecosystem and an excellent starting point for organizations that wish to adopt xAPI.
cmi5 provides the following functionality that SCORM does not:
- Richer Data Collection. Record any data you want (and get it back!)- SCORM is limited to a "list" of data collected. cmi5 is open-ended on the data you can collect.
- Share Data more easily – cmi5 uses a web service and data structure that allows easy integration with other systems/applications.
- Distributed Content – cmi5 content can reside anywhere, it allows for content as a service.
- Elimination of "Pop-up" Windows - eliminate pop-up blocker headaches
- Mobile app launch support – cmi5 content does not require a browser. Content could be a mobile app.
The following table provides a high level comparison of SCORM to cmi5 for learning & development professionals who develop/deliver SCORM content.
Feature SCORM cmi5 Description Track "anything" No Yes SCORM is constrained to a defined set of data elements. cmi5 allows you to define your own data elements in addition to predefined elements Mobile Friendly No Yes A mobile app cannot be tracked with SCORM, but can with cmi5. Host content anywhere No Yes All SCORM content must reside in the LMS, cmi5 has no such restrictions (content can be located anywhere). Can you get your data? No Yes Most LMSs do not expose all of the data collected with SCORM. With cmi5, you can access to all the data in standard way.You can make your own report writers. Offline Friendly No Yes SCORM requires a continuous connection to a LMS and cmi5 does not. It is therefore possible to design offline cmi5 content. Extensibility No Yes With cmi5, you can collect any data you want from your learning content.Your LMS will use an LRS to support cmi5. With an LRS you can build a learning ecosystem beyond the LMS, easily connecting to other systems.
The following is a side-by-side comparison of SCORM to cmi5 at a detailed feature level.
Feature SCORM cmi5 Comments Content Package YES YES SCORM has a package containing local content with an XML manifest that details course structure and all resources. cmi5 has an XML course structure that can reference remote or local content. Both have a ZIP file for transferring content (locally). Objectives YES YES SCORM has Objectives Metadata that can be used for sequencing logic (called "simple sequencing").cmi5 has objective metadata that does not affect course behavior. Remediation YES NO With SCORM remediation can be implemented by "simple sequencing" logic rules. cmi5 has no remediation rules. Remediation is content and LMS vendor specific. Prerequisites Yes No With SCORM prerequisites can be implemented by "simple sequencing" logic rules.cmi5 has the notion of "MoveOn" criteria for completion of individual AU or groups of AU Content Launch Yes Yes JavaScript parent/opener with JavaScript communication object/API. The LMS determines how the content is redirected/launched to (pop up window, iframe, redirect) Launch URL with parameters for Web services communication. The course structure settings determine windowing ("own window" or "any window") Communication Interface Yes Yes JavaScript communication object/API. Restful Web Service (xAPI) Metadata Yes Yes IMS manifest Activity Definition, State API, Course Structure file Additional Authorization Protocols No Yes All communication with JavaScript made injection very easy. Use of tokens and fetch URL is more secure. Content Defined Data No Yes No fields beyond those defined in the SCORM Data Model. Use of xAPI allows any data to be tracked. These Statements would be cmi5-allowed. Browser less Capability No Yes SCORM - Technically not possible. cmi5 - Use of xAPI allows a JSON data format and HTTP, neither of which rely on a browser. Distributed Content No Yes All SCORM content needed to be located in the package. With cmi5, no such restrictions. Flexible Technology Stack No Yes SCORM required JavaScript and XML. cmi5 only relies on HTTP, which would be hard to replace. Data Access No Yes In SCORM, the only specification protocol for returning data was available at Run-Time for the current user within current SCO only. Access to data required access to the Database (which is outside the scope of SCORM.cmi5 uses xAPI which has querying (GET Requests) built-in to allow return of data. LRSs cannot be write-only. All elements of data are exposed in a defined manner.). Data Readability No Yes Could not read SCORM data directly, reliance on Database. cmi5 – the xAPI based JSON / Document structure allows for common definition. Data Portability No Yes SCORM data did not allow for easy import/export.With cmi5 its (xAPI based) JSON structure allows for easy portability across known/popular database architectures and exported to other systems Scalable Data Size No Yes SCORM had a notion of controlling the size of data fields. cmi5 does not proscribe data size. Centralized Content No Yes SCORM didn't allow content to be distributed, much less allow it to be centralized. cmi5 enables the notion of having a course in one location and accessed through multiple users and even through multiple authentication/authorizations. Offline/Intermittent Play (Groundwork from Browserless Feature) No Yes SCORM could only work offline if a custom player was used. Content couldn't adjust to make this happen. cmi5 content can make an adjustment to work offline. Instructor/Student "Real-time" Interactions No Yes SCORM Instructors and Learners would be tracked completely separately with no means of data sharing. cmi5 does not have specific feature for this, but use of xAPI allows for modular approaches that could enable sharing of information from the LRS. Flexible Content Types No Yes SCORM classifications of content were "SCO" and "asset" (cmi5 doesn't implement this) but xAPI allows for many activity types, which could allow specific behaviors for defined content types.
All Previous cmi5 Meeting Minutes
https://github.com/AICC/CMI-5_Spec_Current/wiki
cmi5 on GitHub: