> Andr� Milton wrote: > > <snip>... We in the CMS space should just engulf > > the eLearning technologies like a big amoeba. > > Anyone want to help me define a new eLearning > > standard? Hehe...
David O'Dwyer added: > Anybody got any ideas/thoughts/experience with this? > > LOVE to hear thoughts... Oooooh! Cool thoughts! I think this is a *very* good thing to pursue, but we must tread (very) lightly. There are many private companies (especially traditional media publishers) and committees (both academic and industry based) that have tried, and failed, to do this (widely supported eLearning/content standards). In general, a BIG and UNDEFINED thing like unstructured heterogeneous content is already scary, and the idea that eLearning (including questions and answers, material validation, and necessity for distributed presentation) does not make that SMALLER. Also, I would assume that after putting one or more people in a room, the blood would start to pour regarding *technology* in addition to *issue* (sad, but I've seen this so many times). For example, a couple people will want to talk about whether or not the technology should understand "questions" or "user response things" that can be validated (and whether there are specific "well known" versions of them like True/False, Multiple Choice, Matching, and Fill-In-The-Blank questions), and then somebody else wants to specify the markup in XML (Oh... did you mean we're using the XML technology to spec our standard? We're not using Electronic Document Interchange (EDI), another text-delimited distribution standard embraced by heathcare, the automotive industry, and many government agencies?) Of course, addressing both issue and technology is valid: To some extent people must have agreement on issue so everybody knows what the standard does and does not represent, and people must also have agreement on technology so everybody has something tangible to use (or interchange). Unfortunately, strong disagreement in EITHER area is sufficient for the entire effort to fail. However, Andr�, I completely agree with you: It seems quite reasonable for the CMS community to engulf the eLearning community, because ultimately they are the same thing. The CMS community merely has to establish "well-known things" like True/False questions, which is *always* done by the eLearning community (their bounding of the problem to known content type specific to eLearning increases their efficiencies in content management and presentation). I've spent much time in this area over the last decade, and sadly, I've established opinions. I believe it *is* reasonable to establih "well-known" entities like "questions", and even specific types of those things like TF, MC, MATCH, FIB, etc. Also, I accept XML as a reality for interchange, but I don't like it for storage. I prefer simple text files with well-established formats that are easy to parse and version for storage to minimize vendor dependance and maximize accessibility. That requires agreement on technology, and others may not that technology opinion. But, these are only opinions, and a good argument can probably sway me because ultimately my personality requires external validation. Right? So, if there is an effort to pursue eLearning standards or guidelines by the CMS community, I'd like to play until the others in the group realize that I'm annoying to have around, and they then kick me out of the group. Of course, since I'm also probably codependent and constantly thirst for attention, there's a chance I won't leave so you'll have to actively block my email address. --charley [EMAIL PROTECTED] __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- http://cms-list.org/ more signal, less noise.
