Talk:LAMS: Difference between revisions
(Initiative to standardize vocabularies that describe activities -- ~~~~) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
At ICALT 2008, Griffith et al presented an almost working simplified widget engine that could potentially address the lack of services in IMS LD, which it's an easy work around. But does not address the lack of services interface definitions. | At ICALT 2008, Griffith et al presented an almost working simplified widget engine that could potentially address the lack of services in IMS LD, which it's an easy work around. But does not address the lack of services interface definitions. | ||
===Re: Initiative to standardize vocabularies that describe activities -- [[User:Daniel K. Schneider|Daniel K. Schneider]] 13:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)=== | |||
Yes, this a vision I can share personally and your updates too.... | |||
Some people though still believe that one could compile from high level description languages into executable IMS LD. I am not expert enough to judge whether IMS LD could/should be expanded to include abstract descriptions of learning services or whether we shouldn't care .... :) | |||
Latest revision as of 14:31, 3 March 2009
Initiative to standardize vocabularies that describe activities -- Ernieg 22:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware all initiative presented at UNFOLD or TenCompetences projects about a possible standardization of learning services have not been followed up.
Additionally in 2007/8, the TenCompetences project focus on vaguely describe IMS LD as something that shouldn't be concerned with learning services as it is not a runtime but instead a description language.
At ICALT 2008, Griffith et al presented an almost working simplified widget engine that could potentially address the lack of services in IMS LD, which it's an easy work around. But does not address the lack of services interface definitions.
Re: Initiative to standardize vocabularies that describe activities -- Daniel K. Schneider 13:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, this a vision I can share personally and your updates too....
Some people though still believe that one could compile from high level description languages into executable IMS LD. I am not expert enough to judge whether IMS LD could/should be expanded to include abstract descriptions of learning services or whether we shouldn't care .... :)