CMI 5 Working Group Meeting Minutes – February 10th, 2017

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:

Executive Summary

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.

SCORM vs. cmi5 Comparison for L&D Professionals

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.

SCORM vs. cmi5 Detailed Comparison

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:

https://github.com/AICC/CMI-5_Spec_Current