Child pages
  • SCORMTool Collab - Meeting 02_15_2006
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata


William Wan HKUST - Hong Kong University of Science and Technology

  • Sacha Le Pretre CRIM Cent Research in Computer Science (Montreal)
  • elearning tools

James Renfro, UC Davis
Jon Gorrono, UC Davis

Meeting began with a general discussion of Sakai implementations at each institution.

HKUST brief on SCORM player efforts

Some highlights

  • been using SCORM since 1.0
  • player spec. conformance aim is SCORM1.2
  • abandoned JSF
  • AJAX client
  • Significant modifications to resource tool
    Course Content Tool
    1. customized version of "Resource Tool" for HKUST's needs
      • ordering of items
      • selective release
      • tracking for non-SCORM items
    2. support of upload of SCORM packages
      • make use of existing ContentHostingService of Sakai
      • input of SCORM meta data
    3. support of replacing SCORM packages
      • eplace an already uploaded SCORM package with another SCORM package
      • racking records and student SCORM data are preserved
    4. directly launch SCORM runtime when a SCORM package is clicked
    5. support of existing file organization tasks
      • moving/removing a SCORM package is supported
      • copying a SCORM package is not allowed
    6. uploading of scorm1.2 packages
    7. packages 'launched' from modified Resources tool
  • separate reporting tool designed to report on any Resource's usage in addition to the reporting of a preset datamodel subset

Questions raised by HKUST during the meeting

(Please comment the page or follow the paragraph with answers/comments and from whom they come)

Q1. Problem of the handling of nested SCORM packages

SCORM 1.2 standard claims to support sub-packages (nested) packaging / aggregation. A course could hence be composed of multiple nested sub-courses. It is difficult to find a working, perhaps future compatible, SCORM 1.2 example of multiple sub-courses packaged course. Do you have an example in any SCORM version? And which packaging tool do you recommend beyond RELOAD?
  • UCD - Jon Gorrono
    • Aren't subpackages deprecated in SCORM2004?

Q2. Schema validation and version

Is schema validation used in UC Davis's SCORM implementation? We find it difficult to validate xml since schema files are just missing or out-dated. Some packaging tool forgets to include the imsmd.xml if they pack sco's metadata file in a separate folder and can't be validated.
  • UCD - Jon Gorrono
    • Yes, the UCD tool uses the ADL validator code. I think this code has a fail-over to look for schema files in the webapp if not present to or otherwise in addressable URI space given by the package.
    • I have not run into any troubles validating external metadata files useing the ADL code. That does not mean there is no trouble to be found. This should be looked at closer.
Which version of imscp , imsmd and adlcp schemas would you recommend for SCORM 1.2? We found imscp 1.1.3 or 1.1.4, imsmd 1.2.4 and adlcp 1.2 are more appropriate for validation.
  • UCD - Jon Gorrono
    • I have not dealt with SCORM1.2 in a Sakai context... 1.3x code did not even import the packages. Doesn't ADL recommend repackaging all SCORM1.2 content in SCORM2004 CAM? There are conversion scripts for this. We need to decide if reprocessing older packages is worth saving the coding costs of implementing SCORM1.2 methodologies.
  • No labels