- Get Started
- Write Code
Posted by Tim Martin
Posted 8 December 2017
I’m sorry. My bad. Mea culpa.
I wrote this all the way back in September, and I told you I’d follow it up with a further post one week later. It’s now eleven weeks and one day later and I still don’t have an answer for you. To be honest, I am struggling to discern which pieces of work would best support the xAPI community and Rustici Software. We’re talking about it here frequently, and haven’t reached consensus. And for that reason, I’m not making commitments and we’re not starting the process of building anything yet.
We’re active, yes. There’s good work happening at the IEEE LTSC TAG xAPI, and we’re doing a bit of it. And ADL has published new BAA requests, and we’re considering those. But mostly, we’re patient. We’re thinking through what we could build and if it’s the best use of our energies.
So, for the time being, please accept my apologies for naively predicting I would have something conclusive to say a week later. I’ll keep trying.
Posted by Kirsty Hughan
Posted 11 October 2017
Last week, the Department of Defense (DoD) signed the updated DoDI 1322.26 Distributed Learning (DL). The latest DoDI advises all entities within the DoD to procure eLearning technology solutions that are compliant with the SCORM or Experience API (xAPI) specifications.
This Instruction replaces the 2006 version of DoDI 1322.26, “Development, Management, and Delivery of Distributed Learning,” which mandated (as opposed to advised) the use of SCORM in all eLearning technology used by the DoD. With the updated DoDI released, DoD entities can source the right DL solution based on their requirements, as opposed to being limited by the SCORM-focused scope of the older Instruction.
The 2006 DoDI required any DL technology to be SCORM conformant. After xAPI was released in 2013, it was hard for government organizations to purchase modern products as xAPI was not supported by the existing Instruction and there was no way to verify if an xAPI solution conformed to the specification. Now, government organizations have the flexibility to procure the right technical solution based on their requirements, and a means to verify that the products conform to either SCORM or xAPI.
We are excited because this is the culmination of a lot of work for many people at both ADL and Rustici Software. In 2015, we at Rustici were awarded a BAA from ADL to help them revise the 2006 DoDI 1322.26. You can read more about that story on the Rustici Software blog if you’d like.
Lucky for you, ADL recently launched a list of Conformant LRSs as part of their xAPI Adopter Registry. If you’re looking to procure an xAPI conformant LRS, this is a great place to start. If you’re looking for resources about xAPI conformance, check out the official xAPI reference and support resource for DoDI 1322.26.
Posted by Tim Martin
Posted 15 September 2017
Shelly Blake-Plock announced last night via LinkedIn that he would be leading a Technical Advisory Group (TAG) for IEEE LTSC (Learning Technologies Standards Committee). This is good news, as Shelly is going to carry a real load in leading that group. In his own words, Shelly describes the work in this way:
Our initial purpose is to create an IEEE technical report as a reference and implementation guide for xAPI 1.0.3. More broadly, we’ll be providing an open place for discussion among xAPI stakeholders and we’ll potentially be making recommendations about needs to support widespread use of the specification based on our activity in writing the report.
Our start point is the xAPI 1.0.3 specification. We’ll discuss all aspects of xAPI such as xAPI Profiles and the relation of xAPI to SCORM and cmi5. The end point is open-ended and in our discussion we will work to define the scope of the TAG.
My version: We’re glad the initial purpose of this group points toward standardization. IEEE stamping xAPI would encourage adoption, particularly outside of the US. It would send a positive message to the community at large that xAPI is a real and complete and adoptable thing.
My priority for this group is to remain focused on the standardization of xAPI 1.0.3, rather than evolution. Broader conversations about profiles and other things that xAPI requires (e.g. evolution of the specification and surrounding specifications) are happening in many venues, and I hope this doesn’t spread the community too thin. Instead, I hope they can successfully take the steps that help IEEE consider it for standardization. This is just step one of many in that regard.
So, thanks to Shelly for leading this. We, as Rustici Software, will be sending along one of our experts to participate as well. Ben Clark played an active role in the evolution of SCORM during the 2000s, and was the true leader on Project Tin Can, which led to the advent of xAPI. He’s pretty well informed.
If you’re the adventurous sort, Shelly has invited all comers. His LinkedIn post will point you in the right direction.
Posted by Tim Martin
Posted 6 September 2017
I’ve spent a lot of time over the last couple of weeks learning about some things that are happening with ADL (the governing body for SCORM and closest thing we currently have to a single steward for xAPI right now).
My first tl;dr
Wait. Even that was too long.
A better tl;dr
SCORM and xAPI are both still just fine. Use them exactly as you were planning to before you read this.
Now the long version.
The closest thing we have to news is this. ADL’s funding has been reduced substantially in the short-term. Basically, this means that ADL will make cuts on a temporary basis, and several people who have worked there over the last few years won’t be in the short term. (There are some great people considering their futures, if you’re looking for some expertise.)
ADL’s budget is included in the proper FY18 budget, at a level that is slightly smaller than prior years, but still significant ($11M+ as I read it). Supposing that comes through in February of 2018, they would hire people (familiar faces or new ones) and continue with the same or related work.
Truthfully, we can’t predict what the priorities of that organization will be in the short or long term, but we never really could. Until they say otherwise, I believe that ADL will continue to provide the infrastructure that supports xAPI and SCORM both. This includes the websites that have resources and examples. At Rustici, we have some comparable resources available, and we’ll continue to offer those. If ADL finds itself unable to do certain things at some point in the future, Rustici Software will fill the most important gaps.
Other people and organizations are stepping up and expressing their care and interest in contributing to the evolution and support of xAPI. This can be nothing other than good news. (OK, quietly, and for a small group of us, this can be a little confusing and frustrating. We have to navigate the different bodies and their respective merits. But that’s a problem for a few, not for the many. A service Rustici provides to its customers is absorbing this angst on their behalf.)
Ultimately, what we need as a vendor community and really an L&D community is consensus. We need to agree about how content and LMSs communicate at runtime, and we need to agree about how two systems talk to each other about the things people do. In the end, standards and specifications are a documented form of consensus.
Standards bodies provide some rails for reaching and documenting that consensus. I think ADL’s done a great job of this over time. For as long as there is good, consolidated, effective leadership in these communities, we greatly prefer to defer to and serve that leadership. Should ADL’s leadership wane, Rustici Software would increase our participation and influence consistent with our views on what is best for the community.
Posted by Tim Martin
Posted 20 July 2017
Just a little editor’s note for everyone. You may notice that this site now redirects you more aggressively toward its experienceapi.com representation. In 2015, we heavily revised experienceapi.com and established that, when it came to using xAPI vs. Tin Can, “We call it whatever you call it.” Our goal was to provide resources and advice to people in the way they were looking for it. If they wanted to use “Experience API,” that’s what we’d use. If they wanted to use “Tin Can,” we were on board.
Both in real life and here on the website, we’re pushing a little harder toward xAPI at this point. We’re never going to yell at someone who says Tin Can, but we may just refer to it as xAPI. You’ll also see that we’ve changed all of the references to be explicitly xAPI rather than Tin Can. I promise, we’ve done something more than just “find and replace”, but if you happen upon a place where we missed a Tin Can reference, feel free to let us know. The one caveat is that we’re keeping historical references to “Project Tin Can,” the origin of the Experience API.
We’ll also be updating our prototypes to the new language. As anyone who writes code can appreciate, changing code doesn’t happen overnight, so it will take some time.