CMI 5 Working Group Meeting Minutes – July 10th, 2015

cmi5 Working Group Meeting Minutes – July 10th, 2015

Attendees

• William A. (Bill) McDonald - cmi5 Working Group Leader
• Andy Johnson – ADL
• Henry Ryng – inXsol
• Severin Neumann – eLearning AG
• Slava Uskov – iSpring
• Pankaj Agrawal – GrassBlade
• David Pesce – Exputo
• Brandt Dargue – Boeing Research & Technology
• Charles Touron - ASTC

Notes

The group discussed coordination with other xAPI communities of practice (COP) and how these other xAPI profiles would fit within (or parallel to) cmi5.

Coordination with other xAPI communities

The Video COP for xAPI is wanting to ensure that as it develops its xAPI profile for video, that it does not conflict with cmi5 rules. Pankaj Agrawal, leader of the Video COP discussed how a video asset could report data within an cmi5 assignable unit. Bill McDonald has also met separately with Pankaj and Video COP to understand the desired outcomes. The video COP xAPI profile will be standalone. (but may include some cmi5 use cases)

The HR OS (also known as HR XML) organization has reached out expressing a willingness to work together on assessment reporting that would be compatible with cmi5. Aaron Silvers is coordinating a meeting between the two groups.

A common thread between these activities is understanding how statements made during an AU session address the needs of these other xAPI profiles without conflicting with cmi5 rules.

AU Asset communication with LRS

The main discussion revolved around how an “asset” within an AU (Assignable Unit) would directly record LRS statements in a manner that did not conflict with AU/cmi5 statements. The idea being that an AU might have many different components (assets) that could record data to the LRS outside the scope of cmi5 statements.

Pankaj proposed that assets within an AU be able to issue statements using the same cmi5 verbs (and cmi5 statement contexts) as long as it was not using the same Activity ID as the parent AU. This proposal raised concerns about the cmi5 rules restricting multiple statements for specific verbs within an AU session

Pankaj’s asserted that if the asset uses a different Activity ID (than the parent AU - or other AU's in the course) - then there would be no issue with a "asset" making such statements in an AU session.

Pankaj further proposed that :

• The Parent ID of the Asset is the AU's Activity ID and is included in an Asset's Statements. (SHOULD)
• The Grouping ID - may be another way to collect all statements for an AU’s assets.

This topic will need much further discussion to investigate the proposals and best describe what (if any) further definition is needed for AU asset statements (or non cmi5 statements) during an AU session.

Next Meeting:

July 17th, 2015 – 10:30 am US Eastern Time