I think there are some great ideas in Common Cartridge, and some  
others that worry me quite a bit.

I'll try and leave the pejorative on IMS aside and focus on Common  
Cartridge.

Firstly, I like the move to using web services to transfer data from  
content to server.  I mean, this is pretty much a no brainer, but it  
solves sooooooo many problems with cross-domain scripting and all the  
craptacular workarounds we deal with right now.  SCORM coulda and  
shoulda -- but didn't implement it.  Doesn't mean they won't ever,  
but CC has working examples of how this should work and the  
specifications are mapping to the use cases.  This is a good thing.

The idea of the cartridge itself is intriguing.  I mean, in one  
respect, it's just content packaging on steroids, but it's completely  
up to the developers to ensure that everything needed that's custom  
to the content is inside the cartridge.

I'm also very much in favor of a data model that supports common  
applications in a learning environment -- like the ability to launch  
a collaboration application like Breeze or WebEx -- you'll be able to  
author content that allows you to launch a collaboration module and  
whatever application is used for "collaboration" in the environment,  
it'll be there.

 From a records-keeping POV, the ability for an LMS to use  
webservices to access another LMS through single sign-on is a huge,  
huge boon.

So yeah, there's a lot to like.  I didn't even get into the whole  
"skinning" of content that they're also prototyping.  IMS has paid  
attention to what people have been complaining about with SCORM and  
AICC.

But, there's also a lot to worry about.  The CC builds in what  
amounts to DRM on learning content.  I see this as being disastrous  
for the quality of materials and the industry as a whole.  I want to  
be respectful of IP, but content vendors should work for the  
institutions that contract them to build content -- not the other way  
around (in a textbook example, look at what's happening in NCLB where  
the government is negotiating textbook purchasing with sole-sourcing  
to a select few publishers).  This will limit the diversity of  
content in the learning ecosystem, and that's problematic long-term.

Second (I tried to ignore this as much as I could), there is a lot of  
legal mud being slung between IMS and ADL over who owns SCORM -- and  
that is keeping a lot of LMS vendors away from the table as they've  
invested so much money and time just getting SCORM to work.  This is  
yet another hurdle that IMS is saying they should jump through, but  
instead of being the ones to make the most money on the deal, now  
it's the larger publishing houses that stand to gain more from the  
transition.

In the end, everyone will play ball.  CC came from out of nowhere in  
February of this year and made a sizeable impression on me. I'm on  
the Technical Working Group for SCORM.

I'd like to think that we're still going to be heavily invested in  
making Sequencing and Navigation usable, that content presentation is  
going to be defined, that interoperability is an issue we can make  
great headway with.  My only worry is that IMS just takes this over  
and we go back to solving 1.0 problems -- almost 10 years after SCORM  
1.2 first hit.

-a-

Aaron Silvers
aaron.silv...@gmail.com

[ family ]      http://www.mrchompers.net/
[ rants ]       http://gen1.us/
[ music ]       http://radio.gen1.us/
[ flash ]       http://flashforlearning.com/

On Aug 23, 2007, at 6:11 PM, philip wrote: