Does SCORM need a little brother?

SCO stands for shareable content object. If a course is not built to be shareable, it isn’t really a SCO, even if it uses SCORM for packaging. Spinning SCORM’s communication element off into its own standard — without the name SCORM — would free SCORM to truly be a Shareable Content Object Reference Model, and would free non-aggregators from having to deal with the complexities of SCORM.

IMS announces new QTI validation service

As I’ve mentioned before, it really gets in my craw that the IMS positions itself as a big player in creating and maintaining e-learning standards, yet keeps their doors closed to the public. How can it be a standard if people can’t get to it? Sheesh.

What do you want *your* SCORM to do?

Most e-learning developers don’t care about SCORM and only (begrudingly) learn enough to get the job done. I don’t blame them. This brings up the never-ending question when it comes to using SCORM in courseware: What are you really trying to do with SCORM?

Link: Opening Up the IMS

Quote: There’s something fundamentally contradictory about open standards being developed behind closed doors.