Hi everyone,
First of all, thank you for all the answers, even for questions I should
have asked and hadn't asked yet.
The thing that I still find hard to comprehend though is that IMS decides to
replace a free for all specification that includes an information model,
binding document and BPIG with something its members have to pay for (again)
to acquire.
I know and understand that the LTSC has spend a lot of additional time and
effort in the standard, and charges for it because it has to have some way
of generating a flow of revenue to cover those costs. But in the end it
means that, once something becomes an IEEE standard, it becomes less easily
available for implementers/users/vendors then it was before. And that is not
a good thing.
Pierre
>> (and will we have to pay for it?)
>
> 'fraid so. There's an ongoing push within the LTSC to come up with a
> sponsorship solution; companies and institutions can contribute to a fund
> that will make the standards available to the community for free.
>
>> Does this mean IMS can start working on a final migration so that both
>> bindings are aligned again?
>
> I think the plan is to replace the IMS binding with the IEEE one. From the
> IMS meta-data 1.3 PD:
>
> The intention is to replace the IMS Learning Resource Meta-data XML
> Binding Specification with the IEEE 1484.12.3 Extensible Markup Language
> (XML) Schema Definition Language Binding for Learning Object Metadata to
> be approved in 2005. A draft document can be obtained either from
> http://ltsc.ieee.org/wg12/files/IEEE_1484_12_03_d5_changes.pdf or by
> contacting the IEEE Technical Contact, Wayne Hodgins, email:
> [log in to unmask]
>
> It should mean that IMS Meta-data 1.3 will go from public draft to release
> status.
>
> I will be at the IEEE LOM working group meeting next week, so if there are
> any further questions, I can raise them.
>
----------------------------------------------------------------
Op deze e-mail zijn de volgende voorwaarden van toepassing:
http://www.fontys.nl/disclaimer
The above disclaimer applies to this e-mail message.
----------------------------------------------------------------
|