1) Present
University of Edinburgh (Appleton Tower)
Site not participating, but recording the proceedings on videotape.
University of Edinburgh (JCMB)
Charles Duncan - NLN for Remote Sensing Martin
Morrey - Remote Sensing
Peter Douglas - Euromet
Jean Ritchie - UMI Coordinator
Ray Land - TLA, Uni of Edinburgh
Kim Underwood - UMI Administrator
Chunsheng Miao - NLN for Remote Sensing
University of Glasgow
Margaret Brown - MANTCHI
Napier University (Sighthill)
John Dorner - SUMSMAN
Kevin Gallagher - SUMSMAN
Open University, Walton Hall
Paul Lefrere - Institute of Educational Technology, Open University
University of Paisley
Arthur Loughran - Deputy Director of the Distance Learning Unit
Ian MacLaren - Remote Sensing
John Nixon - Lecturer, Physics
John McQuillan - Remote Sensing
Patrick Walder - Remote Sensing
University of St Andrews
Colin Allison - FINESSE
Martin Bramley - FINESSE
University of Strathclyde
Lorna Campbell - CVU
Dave Whittington - CVU
Permission to record the meeting
JR informed the meeting that a videotape record was being made, and asked permission of all present for the recording to go ahead. Extracts from the recording might be used during conference presentations. Permission had previously been sought via the umi-info email list. There were no objections.
2. Report from Jean Ritchie
2.1 Two UMI 2 seminars had been held (MANTCHI, SUMSMAN on 16th June, CVU on 26th June). JR took part in the CVU seminar which was a great success. The next seminar may include 3 projects (SUMSMAN, Child Health, Remote Sensing), and would then last a full day.
2.2 JR had discussed the videoconference booking procedure with the person who is working on the documentation. Documentation has to be approved by UKERNA. Booking is complicated (many sites; not all rooms are dedicated to VC). JR asked that if any bookings go astray, this should be reported to the Edinburgh Management centre, or to herself, so that this could be followed up. A template may be developed for information that needs to be made available locally, but local booking and information is the responsibility of each site.
3. Report from UMI 2 projects
3.1 Projects had nothing new to report.
4. Presentation by Dr Paul Lefrere, Institute of Educational Technology, Open University, on Instructional Management Systems (IMS) Standard
4.1 The web address for details on IMS is at:
IMS is an open architecture for web-enabled learning; it facilitates the development, use and management of internet-based learning environments.
Metadata categories are being developed; these are subject-specfic; details are at:
http://www.imsproject.org/metadata.html
IMS will provide interoperability of web-based assessment tools, and other programs (eg the results from an example in a teaching package might be made available to a program developed as part of a different package). It would also provide the technical interface to campus IT infrastructure, eg the library.
The IMS project was collaborating with other projects working in the same area.
It was hoped that if UK HEIs were to adopt an international standard such as IMS, this would make it possible to sell UK-based materials to markets such as the US.
The IMS centre in the UK was a model for future centres around the world.
There is a Developers’ network.
Testbed institutions include 9 Universities in the US; Univ of Twente; Oxford University which had received around £300,000 funding. Jonathan Darby was the fundholder.
Funds were available if projects had material that they wanted to make IMS compatible (‘retrofitting’). Staff exchanges were possible. Projects should contact PL if they want to discuss this.
The Univ of Oxford had mounted a large trial to retrofit materials to IMS; there is a project called REM at the Univ of Wales at Bangor; http://weblife.bangor.ac.uk/rem/Frames/new.html. TLTP is receiving some support to add IMS features to some products; a project called SOURCE is building a national repository of shareable resources. Around £1,000 might be available to individual projects to explore retrofitting; after that projects would need to seek sponsorship.
IMS is identifying facets of learning support to explore.
5. Questions and discussion on IMS Standard
5.1 A number of US publishers have been included in the IMS team, to
advise on copyright issues. Electronic watermarking can be used for objects
(graphics, videos), and a unique watermark can be given to each copy made.
It is then possible to track identity and number of users. A micropayment
system is possible; maybe free use up to a certain number of students at
a site. PL hopes to hear more from the USA on their copyright experiences.
He also hopes to encourage UK publishers to participate.
PL will summarise discussions currently taking place, and make it publicly
available.
Action PL
5.2 DW pointed out that CVU had developed a registration system, assessment engine, discussion mechanism etc. which all work together. He asked what benefit would be provided by retrofitting to IMS, and when the IMS standard would be stable. PL replied that the IMS should be stable by September 1998. Projects will be launched at the ALT-C conference in Oxford in September; examples of IMS software will be available at ALT-C.
DW pointed out that the IMS uses some specifications such as RDF, which itself is still only a working draft and not yet recommended by W3C.
PL explained that IMS currently has three levels of aspiration:
1. metadata (lowest level)
2. interoperability - moving target; influenced by commercial partners
3. knowledge associated with different domains; this is a few years in the future.
Byte magazine for April 1998 in article on XML described tools that will be IMS compliant (eg Mathematica).
5.3 CA asked whether bodies such as COSHEP had become involved in the IMS standard. PL replied that it had started as a technology driven programme, involving large US Universities. A user group is being established. Issues important to the UK are starting to be considered, for example accreditation issues.
5.4 JR pointed out that business involvement might provide the financial backing to make sure that a lasting standard did emerge. Even if IMS failed, if enough of the HE community is involved then some sort of standard is likely to emerge, and products developed will have a better chance of compatibility.
6. AOB
6.1 JR asked all present if it was permissible to make copies of the
videotape that had been made of the meeting. There were no objections.
There were requests for copies, and JR asked people to email to confirm
requests.
Action All