A few days ago IMS/GLC published its specifications for the newly-renamed Common Cartridge v1.0, after nearly two years of intense work and effort. Great!

So, straight away, yours truly dives in for a bit of a look at the specs of what promises to be the content-interchange format of the future — no less!

And as I work through it, an unpleasant aftertaste starts creeping in on yours humbly. This looks familiar, so does this, but hang on, this (and more) could already be done with the Content Packaging specs. Blimey, and they’re using the old version of Question & Test Interoperability… and only a subset of the LOM metadata (basically the mapped DC fields).

Ah, but here come the new features! Don’t miss them, here they are, namely:

  1. Compatibility with SCORM 2004 (my favourite standard).
  2. A new content type that allows forums to be created (absolutely a-m-a-z-i-n-g).
  3. The IMS Common Cartridge Authorization Web Service (a bodge job so publishers can authorise their own packages to be played).

And all this, mind you, after two long years of drafting the specs.

All of it, of course, wrapped in a whole load of proclamations, benefits, and even a world-spanning alliance (the Common Cartridge Alliance) with the slogan “FREE the CONTENT”, in big, bold capital letters.

Naturally, part of that alliance is made up of the big commercial e-learning players and, of course, the giant publishing mammoths. And upon payment of a “symbolic” sum, you can (must) become a member of the select alliance. And I say “must” for one simple and curious reason: if you’re not, you get access to practically nothing. No examples, no tests, no implementation details, nothing. Just a 114-page PDF (plus another 21 pages for the authorisation system spec mentioned earlier), thoroughly cryptic and of little use. Though, for a few dollars more, IMS does offer to validate your packages and certify they’re correct (another money-spinner).

And it’s supposed to be an open standard, one we should all embrace (something IMS itself ought to be particularly keen on). And it’s also supposed to be useful for the learning process, blast it!

Anyway, to sum up — as they say — here are a few initial impressions:

  1. Plenty of commercial interest, little pedagogical interest.
  2. Based on well-known specs, but limited ones.
  3. Reduces the whole learning process to content, quizzes and forums. Far too simplistic.
  4. A total lack of resources, examples, tests… for implementing it.
  5. Money-spinner after money-spinner (how many people live off the money IMS/GLC generates?)
  6. The authorisation system is, quite simply, a nuisance that completely invalidates the slogan (“free the content”).

Anyway, all this is just the fruit of my efforts over the past week, reading through the hundred-odd pages of specifications, and largely brought on by my inability to find any more “practical” information about said specifications. I’m sure things will evolve for the better, and at worst, it might end up being a more or less decent spec for importing / exporting some content and quizzes to / from my beloved Moodle.

We’ll see how the story ends… for now I still much prefer Moodle’s own backup format as a content standard (and for whatever else), ha ha.

Ciao, stronk7 🙂