JISC CETIS Codebash 4 Feedback

Back in June, JISC CETIS held a codebash event to test the functional interoperability of systems and applications which implement a wide range of content-related standards and specifications. After the event, participants were invited to answer a few short questions to provide feedback. Thirteen people responded to the survey and a summary of the results is available below.

The results showed that 61 per cent of the respondents were attending a codebash event for the first time, with 31 per cent attending their second or third event and just 8 per cent at their fourth. With the physical event being held in Bolton and participants joining remotely from other locations as well as a scheduled event in Norway, it was interesting to see the spread in response: 54 per cent of the respondents were at Bolton and 15 per cent in Norway with the remaing 31 per cent having used the Breeze software to join remotely. Of the four people who used Breeze, the following comments were provided:

“Very good experience. There only seemed to be some start-up issues when the codebash first started, but other than that it was good.”

“Some hiccups – but eventually the system worked. I would not give up the system – but there is a need for a supervisor concentrating on the running of the system at all times during the sessions.”

“It was at bit troublesome. Did not work properly for me.”

“I think the chat function was useful both for involving the distance participants as well as to communicate with colleagues in the room.”

The majority of respondents (54 per cent) tested content packages at the event with 31 per cent testing QTI files.

The various event features saw different responses: 46 per cent found it very useful to test their own resources while only 38 per cent thought the same of testing other developers’. Encouragingly, 69 per cent found the event to be useful, with a further 23 per cent deciding it was ‘very useful’. To add further encouragement to the event, 77 per cent said they would be interested in attending another codebash with the remainder unsure. 46 per cent of respondents also said they intended to continue using the codebash website after the event. When considering the physical event at Bolton, the location did not find much favour with more choosing Bolton as only ‘average’ convenience than any other option.

A selection of comments regarding the codebash are displayed below.

“Useful to see common cartridge.”

“I would like to see more interaction at the codebash website. Discussions, IM etc.”

“It was a great opportunity to talk to technical colleagues directly about developments that I was carrying out as well as to get an idea of what others are working on and how it will fit in with general trends.”

“We should discuss how to extend the numbers of specifications to be tested. The sustainability of the codebash website/software. And we need to bring in more participants – the big players – and the open source ones…”

Some suggestions for future codebashes were also given.

“A better website where we can search and/or filter out packages, now it was a real mess at times to try to find something.”

“We need to develop the testing tool. More interoperability situations tested – how do we test specs that is not yet specs? We need more test packages that are copy right cleared.”

“Enhance the support for distance participation.”

Overall, the event can be shown to have produced positive thoughts with most interested in attending another event. The location may have to be revised though

JISC CETIS Codebash 4

On 7th-8th June, JISC CETIS held their fourth codebash, an event held at the University of Bolton to test the functional interoperability of systems which implement content-related standards and specifications, such as:

• IMS Content Cartridge
• IMS Common Packaging
• IMS Question and Test Interoperability
• IEEE LOM

The day was run in sync with an event in the Netherlands, where participants (along with others in various locations) followed the Bolton event using Breeze. The Bolton event featured a number of presentations before the afternoon’s codebashing, with presentations on the following:

• Specification update: IMS Content Specifications (Wilbert Kraan, JISC CETIS and IMS Content Packaging Project Group Co-Chair)
• Specification update: IMS QTI (Steve Lay, CARET University of Cambridge and IMS QTI Project Group Co-Chair)
• Specification update: SCORM (Angelo Panar, ADL)

In the afternoon, attendees got the chance to test out various files, both from the previous codebash and from new content uploaded during the event. By documenting the result on the codebash website, it was possible to determine the files that threw up problems in certain applications. I used RELOAD to test various content packages, including CPs from last year but also some from Jorum, in order to see if various features – such as multiple organisations and submanifests – would cause problems. I didn’t find anything significant as all the Jorum content could be imported into RELOAD successfully.

In the build-up to the event, I chose 100 packages randomly from Jorum and looked through each for a list of features, such as those mentioned above. With a list of the given features for the packages, it might be useful to produce a more detailed output of what sort of content is in Jorum. This is something to consider and I’ll discuss it more with CETIS colleagues.

Further information

• Codebash wiki site (mp3s and presentations)
• Codebash site (content packages, service ports, etc)
• Codebash feedback
• Pete Johnston’s report