In this example, imscp_v1p1.xsd is at the root of the package, in the same folder as the imsmanifext.xml file. The trick is to create a subfolder in the root of the package, then update schemaLocation to point to the subfolder. I created a subfolder named SCORM-schemas, which you can see in the following code exerpt:
Test, test, test! I’ve tested this in SCORM Cloud as well as a couple of real-world LMSs and haven’t encountered any issues. Your mileage may vary depending on your LMS’s SCORM implementation, but this is perfectly valid XML and shouldn’t break in any LMSs — unless the LMS is poorly coded, but that’s a rarity, right? (LOL)
from what i’m reading between the lines, #SCORM is dead to the ADL. they’re moving on. interesting timing considering #TAACCCT
I had no idea how much hand-wringing and consternation my off-handed comment would cause. It apparently caused (directly or indirectly) some heated discussions about SCORM being dead.
The problem is, I never said “SCORM is dead.” I said “SCORM is dead to the ADL.” Big difference.
Let me elucidate here.*
I posted my tweet after noticing several things:
1. It’s well-documented that the ADL has tried to hand SCORM off to other organizations without success for at least a couple of years — remember the LETSI SCORM 2.0 initiative? Unfortunately, lawyers got in the way.
2. I had recently heard that the ADL has decided to put a lid on SCORM and cease further development, with the lone exception being the possible addition of new data elements from the CMI-5 initiative. No refinements to sequencing and navigation, no web services.
For example, a recent ADL newsletter contained this:
ADL launches Future Learning Experience Project
SCORM was built to support web-based delivery of learning content, based on initial design dating back to the late 1990s. While ADL continues to support SCORM and commits to supporting SCORM compatibility in new efforts, we have also begun new work to meet distributed learning needs beyond SCORM: the Future Learning Experience Project.
“New work” that goes “beyond SCORM” while “continu[ing] to support SCORM.”
Add it all up and you can make a pretty solid case that the ADL wants to move on to the next thing, and the next thing will be defined by the outcome of the Tin Can research coupled with the Future Learning Experience Project.
And your point is?
I could write a book trying to explain the troubled life of SCORM, and how it has been seen as a savior, an outcast, an anchor, and a noose. But I don’t want to do that. I just want to let everyone know that my tweet was simply an off-hand remark that it appears the ADL wants to move on to something else. The ADL wants to have “life after SCORM.”
In a private email thread, I told some of those concerned:
My point with my tweet was that I have a gut feeling that SCORM, as we know it, is being left behind. This isn’t a negative statement, though it could be construed that way. In my mind, it’s quite the opposite: the ADL (and others) appear to be very active and engaged with the learning technology community. I’ve never seen this level of activity. It’s just that what’s being worked on (in super-simple terms) is a modern tracking mechanism that really only has a cursory relationship to SCORM as we use it today.
Perhaps ADL’s work on SCORM is complete […], but SCORM still needs improvements, and from my admittedly limited observations, the ADL shows no intention of doing that work, choosing to focus on a successor to SCORM instead. Hence my comment that SCORM is dead to the ADL. Brad Pitt is dead to Jennifer Aniston, but he’s not really dead, y’know?
So please put away the pitchforks. SCORM is alive and kicking, though it probably won’t get that reconstructive knee surgery it’s been needing for the last 5 years.
Frankly, I think SCORM’s run-time model is flexible enough that it will remain relevant for years, and that makes me happy. I’m one of the few people who thinks SCORM can be very useful today even when using social media. Just because no one has done it yet doesn’t mean it can’t be done.
My lessons learned:
Some things are better left unsaid (untweeted), especially if they have the potential to be taken out of context.
that’s what she said!
The power of social media means even little pipsqueaks like me can cause a ruckus, intentionally or not.
This blog post is my attempt at documenting my portion of the session. Bear in mind that there was a lot of Q&A from the audience, and much of the session was ad-libbed. The descriptive text presented below may not exactly match was what in the session, but the gist is there.
If you’re interested in the nitty-gritty technical details, check out the Developer’s Guide on the LETSI website.
Some quick background information on the LETSI organization.
LETSI stands for “Learning Education Training Systems Interoperability”.
LETSI believes in pushing training systems forward through agile, iterative software development. Make things quickly, get feedback, and make changes. In our current Internet age, we don’t have the time to take years developing a spec. Make something that works, then turn it into a spec.
LETSI believes in engagement with standards bodies and vendors throughout the process. If a new technology is to become mainstream, it’s vital to get vendors in on the action. Make them stakeholders and get them involved in the project at an early stage.
Unlike some standards bodies, LETSI is transparent and open — there are no strings attached. Membership is not limited to corporations or agencies. Want to have a say in the future of training technology? Join LETSI and you could be on the conference call next week.
The current SCORM architecture requires that courses be launched in a frameset or pop-up window.
The LMS website typically performs data gets/sets on a database using a combination of ajax (xmlhttprequest) and server-side scripting (PHP, ASP, Java, etc.).
The LETSI RTWS changes the architecture to eliminate the middleman (the LMS website), allowing the course to directly communicate with the LMS backend using SOAP. (SOAP can be loosely described as XML sent via HTTP requests.)
No dependence on the web browser also means the course content can be hosted anywhere, and is no longer required to be stored in the LMS system.
Note: In some prototypes, the course must be launched from the LMS for the first attempt. This is due to registration requirements that are still being ironed out.
The accessibility benefits of the LETSI RTWS are debatable, but here are some of my personal beliefs about how the RTWS can make a course more accessible:
2. No reliance on web browsers means a course can be built in a desktop app or other environment that may (or may not) be more accessible than a web site or Flash movie. Of course, this is completely up to the developer, but the possibilities are there if the developer chooses to go down that path.
Under the LETSI RTWS, courses no longer need to be uploaded to the LMS and can be stored on ANY web server. There are several useful byproducts of this:
1. Course manifests no longer need to list every course asset. (Manifests are still required because they contain core data about the course, including the shared secret.)
2. If you’re a course vendor, you can maintain control of all of your course materials and simply provide a link and manifest to clients. No more ZIPs!
3. Since the course materials remain on your server and are not required to run on the LMS server, you’re free to use server-side code (previously a taboo in SCORM).
Despite their often negative reputations, LMSs provide a key service for your SCORM course: a SCORM API with error-checking (including error/debug messages) and behind-the-scenes handling of the CMI data model for you. The RTWS is not currently equipped to provide detailed error messages regarding the use of the CMI data model; if you choose to use the LETSI RTWS in place of the SCORM API, you will no longer have the benefit of the SCORM API’s error messages.
In the RTWS each ‘set’ request is an XML document created by your course and submitted to the server via HTTP. Since your course is creating and submitting the XML, it must use its own logic to determine if there are any errors, such as malformed XML or misuses of the CMI data model. For example, if your course accidentally tries to set a read-only field such as learner_name, you will not receive any error messages. It is up to your course to ensure the specifications of the CMI data model are being followed.
(Hopefully in the near future there will be 3rd-party libraries or frameworks that will provide this logic for you so you won’t have to write your own.)
Also, your course must be using a technology that supports SOAP.
The RTWS currently only supports single-SCO courses, and does not support SCORM 2004’s Sequencing and Navigation rules.
On a related note, since the content is being abstracted from the LMS, the LMS’s SCORM “player” will not be available to the RTWS course.
You can read more about the RTWS at http://letsi.org/rtws
Reminder: LETSI membership is open to the public. If you’d like help shape the RTWS (or other LETSI projects), join us!
Additional notes and tidbits not covered in my portion of the presentation
I briefly demonstrated a prototype I created for Flash-based courses. My prototype uses a modified version of my pipwerks SCORM ActionScript wrapper, allowing developers to simply swap out the pipwerks SCORM class file with a new pipwerks LETSI RTWS class file and still have their course behave as it did with SCORM 2004. This prototype is not available to the public yet, but when I’ve worked out the bugs I will be sure to post a blog entry about it. Stay tuned!
The LETSI RTWS is based on the SCORM 2004 (4th Edition) spec and uses the same CMI data model.
Because the RTWS uses a new launch approach, support for querying the course’s attempt history has been added to the data model (see GetAttempt and GetAttemptList in the RTWS documentation).
Unlike SCORM, a Get request in the RTWS returns the entire data set in an XML file. It’s up to the course to parse the XML and extract the value for a particular CMI element. I’ve whipped up a document mapping the CMI elements to their XML equivalents.
A Set request can be partial (set a single or small group of elements) or complete (set the entire data model).
SCORM’s Initialize() and Terminate() methods are not currently used in the RTWS.
Rustici Software (scorm.com), Booz Allen Hamilton, and Meridian are all creating LMS prototypes that support the RTWS.
Rustici Software hopes to fold support for the RTWS into its SCORM Cloud service once the RTWS is ready for prime-time.
The ADL (owners of SCORM) are not involved with the RTWS, but they are aware of its existence and are monitoring the situation. In a separate action, the ADL is requesting input on the future of SCORM via Project Tin Can. It is LETSI’s hope that the RTWS, when ready, will be folded into the ADL’s plans for SCORM and that the two will co-exist peacefully.
URL for the ADL’s “SCORM Documents” page:
URL for the ADL’s SCORM 1.2 page:
(In fairness, this can also be construed as a critique of Microsoft SharePoint.)
I’ve had a flurry of emails and messages regarding my SCORM cheat the past few days, and have received feedback from a number of well-regarded SCORM aficionados, some of whom contributed to the standard and helped make SCORM what it is today. This is wonderful, I’m very happy to hear from everyone, especially regarding such an engaging topic.
But as I hear more from these seasoned SCORM pros, I’ve made (what I believe to be) an interesting observation: there is a sharp division between die-hard SCORM developers and casual users. I suppose I’ve felt this way for a long time, but it’s really coming into focus this week. Let me try to define the camps.
Die-hard SCORM developers (aka scormmies). The scormmie is a person who understands what SCO roll-up means, and can hand-code an entire manifest. A scormmie thinks the word metadata is sexy. This person believes a course should be designed to use SCORM from the start, complete with sequencing and interaction tracking; if the course isn’t running in an LMS, it won’t function without being loaded into some kind of SCORM player or test suite. Scormmies get angry if their LMS hasn’t implemented the entire SCORM spec.
Casual users (aka shruggies). The shruggie is a person who doesn’t care about multi-SCO courses. Shruggies don’t want to be bothered by the technical details, and use rapid e-learning development tools to build courses, freeing them from needing to know any of the technical mumbo-jumbo. Metawhat? “SCORM… yeah, that’s one of the publishing options in [insert product name here], right? So it will work with my LMS?”
The e-learning market has changed significantly
Over the last week I’ve mostly heard from scormmies who make comments such as ‘well, if a developer knows what they’re doing, they’d never make their course that vulnerable to begin with!‘ and ‘a developer should never design a course to only require a completion and score… that’s asking for trouble.‘
The problem with this line of reasoning is that the e-learning landscape has changed dramatically since SCORM was first conceived; the scormmie used to be the majority. Now, with the proliferation of e-learning development tools and LMSs, the scormmie is a minority. Most “e-learning developers” are not programmers by trade, and are not familiar with the very complicated and intimidating SCORM spec. They use tools that do the heavy lifting for them.
If you survey most e-learning development tools (which is a booming market), the courses they publish are almost exclusively single-SCO courses that only use the simplest core SCORM functionality: completion status, lesson location (bookmarking), score, and suspend_data. These products are designed to create courses that work without SCORM, which means they only add the minimal SCORM code needed to get the course running on an LMS; all other logic is generally handled internally. They certainly don’t use sequencing and navigation or cmi.interactions.
LMS vendors generally advise customers to buy these off-the-shelf tools to build their courses. E-learning conferences are packed with tool vendors and advertisements selling the virtues of a ‘no technical expertise required’ tool. At work I sometimes get calls from vendors trying to sell me the latest and greatest tool.
The majority of courses are no longer developed by scormmies
Who gets the blame for the vulnerability?
Can the tool makers be blamed? Maybe, but hey, their #1 priority is satisfying the needs of the community, and the community wants quick, easy, and ‘can run on a CD-Rom’. Could the vendors have implemented more sophisticated SCORM mechanisms? Yes. However, everyone chooses the path of least resistance (and least development dollars), and we all know SCORM development is not a walk in the park. I’ve been using SCORM for five years and still avoid most of the complicated stuff because it’s … well … complicated.
Why didn’t anyone act?
I wasn’t privy to the early conversations, but I’ve been told that SCORM developers have said “don’t use SCORM for high-stakes assessments” from the very beginning, circa 2000. If this is the case, why has nothing been done to improve SCORM’s security? It’s only been about nine years. Did convenience beat out security in the race to implement the standard?
I get the impression that the scormmies (and remember, my term scormmie just means a person that works with SCORM, not necessarily an official representative) felt no one would bother trying to hack the system, and that a well-built course would be so difficult to cheat that it would be easier to simply take the course. With today’s simplistic single-SCO courseware tools, I don’t think this is a valid argument anymore.
I’ve also heard from scormmies that we’re still fine, because everyone knows SCORM shouldn’t be used for high-stakes training. I think a significant number of corporate, military and government trainers would disagree with that assessment, because the LMS salesperson never mentioned it. Neither did the e-learning development tool vendor. Oh, and that instructional designer we hired out of college? She’s heard of SCORM but has no clue how it works. Isn’t it safe since you have to log into the LMS with a password? There’s a padlock icon and an https protocol… that means it’s secure, right?
Simple-SCO courses are used for all kinds of sensitive training nowadays. Compliance training alone is huge these days and can be found in examples from almost every simple-SCO tool vendor. As a colleague recently remarked, “it’s all low stakes until someone’s attorney gets involved”.
No hard feelings!
I would like to point out that I am not targeting anyone in particular, have no animosity towards anyone, and have the utmost respect for the scormmies and what they do (I’m half-scormmie myself). I’m an optimist with a very critical eye, and this post is intended as constructive criticism… criticism intended to cause positive change.
It simply became apparent to me that at some point the scormmie community dropped the ball and got complacent; it seems as though the whole community assumed no one would bother to hack a course. Well, I did. And I used public documentation to do it. It took two hours while I was flying on an airplane, and I’m not the sharpest tack in the box. I’m sorry if my cheat script caused a stir (and if this blog post makes some people uncomfortable) but we need to talk about this issue. Now.
What’s the solution?
OK, we’ve covered enough of the criticisms and the importance of working towards a solution… I’m ready to let it rest. Let’s finish on a positive note: SCORM uses existing technology and standards, and if multinational banks can protect billions of dollars from cyber-criminals using standard web technology, we should be able to secure our courseware, too. I personally think we should be able to figure something out in the next couple of months and that it ideally shouldn’t require much work to implement — no need to wait until SCORM 2.0 comes out!
Here are some suggestions I’ve heard:
using a secure web service to handle important duties such as processing completions and scores
rolling up SCOs in a way that forces the LMS to analyze multiple SCOs before setting pass/fail (a second ‘dummy’ SCO could be used if the course is a single-SCO course)
using form posts to submit the completions (the form post would contain a unique encrypted key that must match a key on the LMS)
Personally, I’m especially interested in ideas that don’t require modifications to LMS implementations and might only involve a strategic re-organizing of a SCO’s manifest or SCORM code. Perhaps using a SCO roll-up can become a security best practice, even if the course only uses one SCO? That type of simple solution would be ideal since it wouldn’t require modifications to an LMS or SCORM spec — it would only require a broad marketing effort to get the word out to all SCORM developers and toolmakers.
I would love to hear other ideas, as I feel we can probably come up with any number of workable solutions.Â Â Please add to the discussion! Remember, these need to be solutions that can be implemented easily and by the single-SCO type of courseware tools flooding the e-learning market.
By the way, while we’re at it, can we improve accessibility in our e-learning, too? 😉
I recently emailed a shortlist of good SCORM development resources to a colleague, and figured I should probably post a list here, too. This is a quickie list, and I’m sure I’m leaving someone out. If you know of any resources I’ve missed, please add a link in the comments. This list is presented in no particular order.
Claude Ostyn’s site. He passed away in 2007, so there haven’t been any updates since then. His materials present a nice overview including lots of examples.
The ADL website. Their SCORM Documentation Suite is the official documentation. Must-have for any SCORM developer.
Redbird DevNet [link no longer available]. They have a nice tutorial/walk-through of SCORM 2004 architecture.
Rustici Software. A for-profit business that works almost exclusively with SCORM. They’ve posted some helpful resources on their site.
Aaron Silvers has been writing about SCORM (especially with regards to Flash) for a long time.
adlCommunity. A site dedicated to advancing ADL’s technologies. There are some good resources for SCORM developers, including an overview of SCORM written by the late Philip Dodds, one of the chief architects of SCORM.
Of course, I also have a few SCORM odds and ends on my site you may find useful:
Most e-learning developers don’t care about SCORM and only (begrudingly) learn enough to get the job done. I don’t blame them. The other day I was reading some old Drupal community posts (circa 2005) about adding SCORM functionality to Drupal. One comment stood out:
SCORM was the big buzz in 1999 and 2000 when I was at Oracle Denmark working on “object oriented” e-learning […] but it is no surprise that it is not so much a real world success, as it is more pleasing to the theorist, than to the producer.
“More pleasing to the theorist than to the producer.” I’m not sure if the author was referring to his own work or SCORM, but I think the phrase certainly applies to SCORM. This crystalizes what I’ve been trying to do with my SCORM wrapper and ActionScript classes: simplify SCORM so the average web developer can get their courseware to work in SCORM-conformant LMSs without having to become a SCORM expert.
This brings up the never-ending question when it comes to using SCORM in courseware: What are you really trying to do with SCORM?
What was SCORM designed to do?
SCORM stands for Shareable Content Object Reference Model. What does this mean? According to the ADL website, “SCORM is a collection of standards and specifications adapted from multiple sources to provide a comprehensive suite of e-learning capabilities that enable interoperability, accessibility and reusability of Web-based learning content.”
The general idea is that a course developer can re-use elements from course to course, be it a small piece of content such as an image or an entire course lesson. A common example is from the military: if the Army has created a course that contains a lesson in how to safely use a fire extinguisher, any other branch of the military should be able to import that exact content into their course without having to re-write or re-develop any of it. This avoids duplication of effort, which (theoretically) saves the government a ton of money.
SCORM also serves as a communication standard for courseware, which allows a developer to create a course that can be used in any SCORM-conformant LMS. Before SCORM (and AICC), many LMSs only supported their own proprietary course-to-LMS communication systems. This meant that if a course developer or vendor wanted to make their course work on more than one LMS, they had to re-code the course to use each LMSs’ proprietary system. Even worse, not all LMSs had the same feature support, such as quiz scoring and bookmarking. When the US Military required SCORM to be supported by LMS vendors, it was basically ensuring its courses wouldn’t need to be re-developed or re-coded for each LMS, and established a baseline of feature support that would be expected from all LMS vendors.
That’s nice, but…
As I explained, the SCORM developers devised a complex system of cataloging course content (the metadata you find in the imsmanifest file), as well as a sequencing and navigation schema which should allow a developer to simply insert a link to content (or another SCO) in the manifest, and let SCORM handle the rest. Sounds great, but guess what? Full-blown SCORM is impractical and unreliable.
The theorists who devised SCORM will say that you should be building courses using an intricately woven set of reusable SCOs, bound together by an imsmanifest XML file bursting with links to course content files and related metadata. They have attempted to provide a sequencing and navigation system that can be used to navigate within and between SCOs. These are noble efforts, but they don’t really help most e-learning developers.
Why? Two reasons: Shareable content is problematic to implement, making it useful to only a small percentage of developers, and SCORM is usually not the starting point for a SCO’s internal navigation mechanisms.
Shareable content is problematic to implement
The whole theory behind SCORM’s content and SCO interoperability is really nothing more than theory. It’s not useful for most e-learning developers. In their attempt to maximize flexibility and practicality, the SCORM guys actually made SCORM a less practical option, and more of a headache to use.
Shareable content (including SCOs) implies that the content is generic enough to be reused in different organizations and with different course styling/visualization. This a long shot, and doesn’t take into account the myriad visual design styles developers may choose to use. The only way around this issue is to use a strict formatting approach, which might work in a tightly controlled organization, but not in a general community sense. But for argument’s sake, let’s say everyone agrees to use the same color schemes and fonts in their files. There’s an even bigger issue to deal with: the technology itself, namely file formats.
What if one developer only works in Flash, while the other only knows HTML? What if one Flash developer only uses ActionScript 2 while the other Flash developer only uses ActionScript 3 (the two are completely incompatible)? What if one developer uses XML with Flex while another only uses rapid e-learning tools such as Captivate and Articulate Presenter? For that matter, how can SCORM support the growing online synchronous e-learning market or the booming mobile learning market?
When you stop and look at SCORM’s reusability/shared content model, it simply can’t support today’s rapidly evolving web-based technology. And for the few organizations that manage to use SCORM for this purpose, it’s an extremely difficult task to manage. So what about the developers who don’t use SCORM for shareable content, but choose to simply use SCORM as an LMS communication protocol? SCORM becomes overkill, most notably with the sequencing and navigation feature.
SCORM is usually not the starting point for course navigation.
Third-party rapid e-learning tools use the same approach: get the course to work on its own, then when publishing, go ahead and add the required tracking code, be it AICC, SCORM, or the numerous other formats that have popped up over the years. Thus, navigation is almost always handled internally and not via SCORM.
Continuing with this train of thought, my interaction with the e-learning community has led me to believe that many e-learning developers are either SMEs using rapid e-learning tools, or are traditional web developers doing some freelance Flash or HTML work. In the case of the web developers, they build the course to do what they want, with the minimal functions they need for their client. When it comes time to load the course in the LMS, they suddenly realize they need to add SCORM support; SCORM was never considered an integral part of the course, and is considered something of an inconvenience that must be tolerated for the sake of making the course work in the LMS and keeping the client satisfied. The SMEs using rapid e-learning tools are lucky because they can just change the publishing preferences; the web developers have to go in and augment their code by hand. In either case, the course developer did not start the project thinking “I’m going to use SCORM to handle my navigation!”
What do you want SCORM to do, then?
SCORM is not perfect, but we must concede that it’s still the strongest available technical standard for elearning. There are others (AICC, Common Cartidge Alliance, etc.), but SCORM is by far the most widely supported standard. The exciting news about SCORM is that it is being handed off to a new organization, LETSI, which will hopefully breathe new life into the standard. Matter-of-fact, LETSI has solicited white papers and suggestions for improving SCORM from the general public. Knowing this, we should stop and seriously consider: What do we really want SCORM to do? What should it handle, and what should it keep its sticky fingers off of?
Here are my thoughts. Please add your own in the comments section!
1. SCORM should be broken into separate and clearly differentiated APIs or functionality. The first — and only mandatory — API should be simple course-to-LMS communication. The second should be a reusability/shareable content mechanism that can be used if desired. The third should be an optional navigation API that can be used regardless of whether shared assets are in play. A fourth potential API could be a quiz/exam API that provides an easy-to-use framework for handling quiz data and results. (And NO, the IMS’ QTI specification is NOT easy to use by any stretch of the imagination! Let’s not pretend it’s the best solution, because it isn’t.)
2. SCORM’s course-to-LMS communication protocol should be simplified and strengthened. As-is, SCORM already does a decent job at this task, but there are a number of ways it can be improved.
Simplify (or eliminate!) the imsmanifest file. For courses that don’t use shared resources and don’t use SCORM for navigation or sequencing, the imsmanifest is an extremely bloated and annoying document. It is by far my least favorite part of the SCORM spec., and I know I’m not alone in that sentiment. When talented developers who write code in their sleep have a hard time writing what should be some simple XML, and wind up relying on plugins and third-party applications to auto-generate their manifests, you know there’s a problem somewhere. There must be a way to simplify the manifest if SCORM is only being used as an LMS communication protocol.
Use proper data types. For instance, don’t return a ‘stringified’ boolean, return a real boolean.
Simplify syntax. This means creating an easy-to-use set of base commands such as API.init(), API.quit(), API.set(prop, value), and API.get(prop) instead of the more verbose (and boring) API.Initialize(), API.Terminate(), API.SetValue() and API.GetValue(). (On a related note, API.Initialize and API.Terminate should NOT be required to pass an empty string (“”); the empty string serves no purpose and only creates the potential for more unnecessary errors.)
3. All CMI elements should be re-examined for usefulness. Personally, I never use over 2/3 of the existing elements, and find many of them confusing or hard to use. And this is after 3+ years of constant SCORM development! SCORM should be as streamlined as possible; additional functionality should be separated from the core, and usable on-demand as a plug-in module.
4. Provide more space in the database for developers to store custom data. “suspend_data” is constantly abused by developers who need some space to store their custom data; there’s no reason a new, larger space can’t be assigned for developers to use at their discretion.
What do you think?
I’m sure I left a lot of things off this list, and I’m sure many of you have ideas I’ve never thought of. Share your thoughts! There’s a good chance they’ll be read by others, and your idea may be a spark that helps revolutionize online education! Or not. 😉
If you have some free time, take a look at some of the ideas LETSI is toying with for SCORM 2.0 [link no longer available]. I think they’re on the right track, so long as they don’t let advanced functionality get in the way of the (hopefully) streamlined basics, which is probably what the vast majority of developers will use.