Re: [dita-learningspec] Design of Learning Map Topicrefs: Why NoSubordinate Refs?

[Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com>]

On 6/26/09 3:15 PM, "Reuben Tozman" <reuben@edcetratraining.com> wrote:


> I believe it was because we wanted to ensure that we didn't need any special
> processing that we needed to guide people at the map level.
> 
> My point is that there really isn't right and wrong here. There isn't a one
> to one relationship between learning technologies and DITA so I think this
> becomes a question of whether we want to try and instill best practice
> within the structure itself while maintaining flexibility.

Really my question is this: if I don't use learning map domain topicrefs to
construct my learning content (but do using learning domain topic types,
assessments, etc.) will the out-of-the-box SCORM generation work, assuming
I've met any necessary constraints, such as specifying chunking so that the
HTML result conforms to SCORM constraints?

If the answer is "yes" (my stuff will work) then I don't care what the
learning domain says, since I don't need to use it.

If the answer is "no" then I have a problem because, since I can't use the
learning domain stuff as currently defined, I have to re-implement the SCORM
processing, erasing some of the value of having used DITA and the L&T module
in the first place.

In general, I think it is inappropriate to impose constraints in a standard
of this level of generality if those constraints are not *absolutely
required* to ensure correctness of the data or ensure architectural
fidelity. 

That is clearly not the case for the current learning map design since I
have a working existence proof of an alternative map structure that emulates
an existing interactive course that conforms to SCORM-type constraints and
reflects what I presume is good practice (because it is developed by
professional instructional designers).

That is, I can easily object to the learning map design on general
standardization principles (avoid unnecessary constraints) without knowing
anything about SCORM or instructional design.

One thing that might be interesting would be to set a default value of
"to-content" for @chunk on the learningContentRef topicref and then allow
subordinate topicrefs (e.g. %topicref;). That would have the effect of
producing the SCORM-required output structure by default.

In addition, the SC could provide a constraint module that imposes the
current constraints, having allowed nested topicrefs in the base.

Cheers,

E.

----
Eliot Kimber | Senior Solutions Architect | Really Strategies, Inc.
email:  ekimber@reallysi.com <mailto:ekimber@reallysi.com>
office: 610.631.6770 | cell: 512.554.9368
2570 Boulevard of the Generals | Suite 213 | Audubon, PA 19403
www.reallysi.com <http://www.reallysi.com>  | http://blog.reallysi.com
<http://blog.reallysi.com> | www.rsuitecms.com <http://www.rsuitecms.com>