IEEE LTSC
WG 20
Orlando, Florida
30 October 2005
Learning Technology
Standards Committee 1
Agenda
– WG20 administrative matters
• IEEE-SA Patent policy and disclosure requirements
• Working group roster review
• Plan for Election of officers
– P1484.20.1 Project
• Project status review
• Q&A and clarifications
• Action items and assignments
– Study projects
• Discussion of general framework(s) and requirements
• Scoping of possible projects
• Proposed projects (bring your proposal)
2
IEEE-SA Standards Board Bylaws on Patents
in Standards
6. Patents
IEEE standards may include the known use of essential patents and patent
applications provided the IEEE receives assurance from the patent holder or
applicant with respect to patents whose infringement is, or in the case of patent
applications, potential future infringement the applicant asserts will be,
unavoidable in a compliant implementation of either mandatory or optional
portions of the standard [essential patents]. This assurance shall be provided
without coercion and prior to approval of the standard (or reaffirmation when a
patent or patent application becomes known after initial approval of the
standard). This assurance shall be a letter that is in the form of either:
a) A general disclaimer to the effect that the patentee will not enforce any of its
present or future patent(s) whose use would be required to implement either
mandatory or optional portions of the proposed IEEE standard against any
person or entity complying with the standard; or
b) A statement that a license for such implementation will be made available
without compensation or under reasonable rates, with reasonable terms and
conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.
This assurance shall apply, at a minimum, from the date of the standard's
approval to the date of the standard's withdrawal and is irrevocable during that
period.
3
Inappropriate Topics for IEEE WG Meetings
• Don’t discuss the validity/essentiality of patents/patent claims
• Don’t discuss the cost of specific patent use
• Don’t discuss licensing terms or conditions
• Don’t discuss product pricing, territorial restrictions, or market share
• Don’t discuss ongoing litigation or threatened litigation
• Don’t be silent if inappropriate topics are discussed… do formally object.
If you have questions, contact the IEEE-SA Standards Board Patent Committee
Administrator at [email protected] or visit
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/index.html
This slide and the preceding slide are available at
http://standards.ieee.org/board/pat/pat-slideset.ppt
4
Working group roster
• As of September
2005
– LTSCCOMPETENCY
Mailing list
subscribers: over
100
– Identifiable
through listserv
query: 88
– Obviously not all
active
• Mix of Countries
• Mix of affiliations
– Industry,
academic,
government,
military
Identified LTSC-COMPETENCY subscribers
Australia
Belgium
Brazil
Canada
France
Germany
Greece
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Korea
Netherlands
Poland
Russia
Spain
Sw itzerland
UK
USA
Yugoslavia
5
WG Officers
• Current WG Chair: Claude Ostyn
• Start process for election WG Chair
– Nominations open
– Decide on time frame for closing nominations
– Decide on election method
• Technical editor: Scott Lewis
6
IEEE LTSC WG20
30 October 2005
Working group meeting
Orland, FL, USA
7
P1484.20.1
Reusable Competency Definitions
Project status update
8
Project history
• Originally started in IEEE LTSC as P1484.20
• Judged premature, base doc was passed to IMS in 2001 to develop
spec
• IMS released “Reusable Definition of Competency or Educational
Objective” in October 2002
• It took considerable time to resolve intellectual property rights issues
with IMS to pick up the IMS specification as base to continue
standardization in LTSC
• A draft in IEEE format, designed to be compatible with ISO format
and editorial requirements, was developed by WG20
• In August 2005, LTSC SEC and the WG decided to submit a new
PAR as P1484.20.1 and withdraw P1484.20 because:
– P1484.20 had already been extended once, but balloting cannot be
completed by expiration date of December 2005
– It has become clear that this is only part of a multipart standard
– Original scope and purpose did not exactly match the scope and
purpose of the actual standard draft
• PAR for P1484.20.1 approved by IEEE NESCOM in Sep. 2005
Standard for Learning Technology - Standard for Reusable Competency Definitions
9
• Title
From approved P1484.20.1 PAR
Standard for Learning Technology - Standard for Reusable Competency
Definitions
• Scope
This Standard defines a data model for describing, referencing, and exchanging
competency definitions, primarily in the context of online and distributed learning.
This Standard provides a way to represent formally the key characteristics of a
competency, independent of its use in any particular context. It enables
interoperability among learning systems that deal with competency information
by providing a means for them to refer to common definitions with common
meanings. This standard enables information about competencies to be encoded
and exchanged. It does not define whether a competency is a skill, knowledge,
ability, attitude or learning outcome but can be used to capture information about
any of these.
• Purpose
The purpose of this Standard is to publish an IEEE standard based on the
existing IMS Global Learning Consortium specification for Reusable Definition of
Competency or Educational Objective (RDCEO). This standard is to be defined
in such a way that implementations that conform to the IMS specification will be
conformant to this Standard.
• Reason for this project
This Standard will enable the coding and exchange of reusable competency data
between various stakeholders such as designers of learning management
systems (LMS) and their enterprise customers, users and designers of learning
content, catalogers of learning content, educators, and human resources
departments who need to track and exchange competency data for recruitment,10
staffing, assessments and training.
Document status
•
•
•
•
Reusing draft from previous PAR
Replaced the scope and purpose clauses
A few comments to resolved
Decision point: Go to ballot?
Options
(a) Fix only editorial comments and go to ballot. Let
technical comments be resolved in balloting process.
(b) Address technical comments before going to ballot
(c) Substantial changes first?
11
Coordination activities
• IMS
– IMS is “in the loop” for WG20 work – copied on all communications
• ISO SC36
– General coordination – copied on all communications; common participants
• HR-XML Consortium
– Driven more by recruiting and HR assessment than by training
– More focused on “point to point” rather than general interoperability
– Has a “competency” schema (actually more what we would call a “personal
competency record”) that is being revised to include reference to RCD rather
than inlining the definition in each record.
– Working on competency evidence records, etc. based on RCD
• HR-XML Europe
– Recently reactivated, focus on pragmatic interoperability framework
• ADL
– Some R&D on RCD repositories, training & performance automation through
use of RCDs
• CEN/ISSS
– Past projects referencing IMS RDCEO e.g. WS-LT CWA 14927
– New approved projects starting soon
12
Q&A and clarifications
• Floor is open
13
Action items and assignments
(tentative)
• Finalize draft for ballot
– Resolve editiorial comments
– Resolve technical comments
• WG vote to go to ballot
• Coordination activities)
14
IEEE LTSC WG20
Study projects
15
General framework and
requirements
• Do we need a framework?
– Can be useful to identify:
• Opportunities for standardization (what should and what should not
be considered for standards)
• Functional interoperability requirements
• Service interface points and data model requirements
–
–
–
–
Should not be a standard – only informative (no PAR)
Evolving
Based on real world use cases and best practices
Does not necessarily represent “as built”, because some things
only become possible when there is a standard
• If we do need a framework, does it need to be formal?
– How/where do we capture this?
– WG20 is a technical working group. Where do we capture the
“real world” requirements for what WG20 technology enables?
– Need coordination with other initiatives
16
Standard projects discussions &
proposals (leading to a PAR)
• Possible projects
– Objective statements
– Simple competency maps (data structure referencing RCDs to
specify how they are related in a list, taxonomy)
– Complex competency maps (data structure referencing RCDs to
specify how they are related in an ontology)
• Competency records, competency evidence records (e.g.
person ref + RCD ref + proficiency level + evidence ref = competency
record)
• Simple rollup and “bump” rules for competencies
– Rollup if person is competent in A and B then roll up to competency in X
– Bump if person is competent in A then person in competent in Y
– Rules can be associated with competency maps to specify
inferences of competency based on available records
• Other ideas?
• Action items
17
Annex
RCD Background
18
What is a Reusable Competency Definition
(RCD)?
• Data about a competency that may be reusable
– for more than one person
– possibly in more than one context
– possibly with different metrics
• In a standardized container with a globally
unique identifier
19
Out of scope
• RCD standard will not attempt to define what a
competency is
– No agreement on a definition of “competency” among
communities of practice
– RCD just provides a container for a definition by a
community of practice. The container can then be
referenced by various data constructs and automation
processes
• RCD standard will not specify personal
competency records
– But the standard enables competency records for
different people, where each record references the
same RCD
20
Examples
• Title: “Negotiation – Bringing others together and
trying to reconcile differences”
• Title: “Diagnose power supply fluctuation error in
schmiblick model A1234”
Description: “Given a schmiblick A1234 with a
defective power supply causing fluctuations and the
standard field repair kit type RK34, correctly identify
the fault in less than 3 minutes”
(Note how a RCD can be very general or very specific in scope, and
may include more or less detailed information about the competency
or its context)
21
Example use case
RCDs
RCDs
Definitions
Context
Learner’s Competency
Records
Competency
model
A
B
N
C
P
Q
R
Skill gap
analysis
E
D
T
F
C
Y
Learner’s Target
Competencies
A
B
P
Q
P
K
R
Evidence
Legend
Required competency
Acquired competency
B ID of a reusable
competency definition
RCDs are useful with even a simple “competency map” that uses related RCDs to
– Help summarize skill gap
– Identify relevant learning activities
The same RCD reference is used in a competency record and as learning objective
22
A project team develops
a project plan which contains
an inventory of tasks and
associated resources
(people or teams)
Recommended
training and
performance
support plan
Project
team
7
1
Add relevant
learning and/or
performance
support resources
inventory to seed
of training plan
3
Performance
specialist
2
Simple Competency
model for each task
(identifies one or more
competency)
Competency
definition
repositories
6
Automated
Search
existing
performance
resources
Competency
models
repositories
Learning
object
metadata
(LOM)
Assessment requests,
each of which includes
- Person or group ID
- Competency model
- Confidence policy
May include threshold
proficiency level(s) as
pass/fail criteria for
specific competencies
4
HR
records
Automated
Skill
gap
Analysis
Competency evidence
records distilled from
sources such as
- Resume
- Certifications
- Recommendations
- Employee evaluations
Example use case
Diagram from one of
the use cases used
in the HR-XML
working group to
understand
requirements and
applications of RCDbased competency
evidence records
Skill gap report as seed for a
training plan. For each person
or group, includes inventory of missing
competencies organized by task
and/or by comptency map.
Performance
support
resource
catalogs
Experts
Learning
resource
catalogs
Technical
libraries
Learning
object
repositories
5
Vendors
© 2005 Claude Ostyn
All rights reserved
23