1 / 5

Discussion of IMS ePortfolio Future Directions

Discussion of IMS ePortfolio Future Directions. CETIS ePortfolio SIG London October 22, 2007. IMS ePortfolio 1.0. Released June 2005?? Based on existing IMS specifications Mostly LIP + CP Attempts to map full domain Focus on transfer of full portfolios

phuoc
Download Presentation

Discussion of IMS ePortfolio Future Directions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Discussion of IMS ePortfolio Future Directions CETIS ePortfolio SIG London October 22, 2007

  2. IMS ePortfolio 1.0 • Released June 2005?? • Based on existing IMS specifications • Mostly LIP + CP • Attempts to map full domain • Focus on transfer of full portfolios • Slow uptake, but some strong implementations of export

  3. Feedback • Too monolithic • Need to exchange smaller pieces of learning / personal information • Would like to support multiple other standards • HR-XML • Europass CV / Language Passport • eduPerson, FOAF, hResume, etc. • Services needed • Too complicated • Expense and difficult to implement

  4. Possible Direction • Smaller elements and services are being (or should be) addressed by more general specifications or “speclets” • e.g. HR-XML • Portfolio characterized by items and relationships --> focus on relationships • Profile existing specification • Easier to implement • Focused on what’s specific to portfolios

  5. Possible approaches • Packaging-centered • Leave the details to packaged specifications • CP + relationships (in manifest) • Easy match with existing specification • Webfolio-centered • RDFa or microformats within XHTML • Align with LEAP 2 • Builds in export functions present in many products • Nothing

More Related