IEEE LTSC WG 20

1. IEEE LTSCWG 20 Orlando, Florida 30 October 2005 Learning Technology Standards Committee

2. 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)

3. 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.

4. 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 patcom@ieee.org 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

5. Working group roster • As of September 2005 • LTSC-COMPETENCY Mailing list subscribers: over 100 • Identifiable through listserv query: 88 • Obviously not all active • Mix of Countries • Mix of affiliations • Industry, academic, government, military

6. 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

7. IEEE LTSC WG20 30 October 2005 Working group meeting Orland, FL, USA

8. P1484.20.1 Reusable Competency Definitions Project status update

9. 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

10. From approved P1484.20.1 PAR • Title 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, staffing, assessments and training.

11. 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?

12. 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

13. Q&A and clarifications • Floor is open

14. Action items and assignments (tentative) • Finalize draft for ballot • Resolve editiorial comments • Resolve technical comments • WG vote to go to ballot • Coordination activities)

15. IEEE LTSC WG20 Study projects

16. 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

17. 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

18. Annex RCD Background

19. 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

20. 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

21. 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)

22. Example use case RCDs Context RCDs Definitions Dimensions 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 Dimensions Evidence Skill gap analysis

23. Example use case Diagram from one of the use cases used in the HR-XML working group to understand requirements and applications of RCD-based competency evidence records