Subject: CAPER mail
From: Jan Prins <prins>
To: stotts, nyland
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 16:55:12 -0400

>From [email-masked] Wed Jul  5 23:07:29 1995
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 95 23:06:54 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Mark Pullen)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Notes from our meeting in San Diego- corrections sought
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Status: RO

CAPER CLUSTER MEETING
SAN DIEGO CA    26-28 JUNE 1995
MINUTES

ISSUE CATEGORIES/DESIDERATA FOR CLUSTER PLANNING

1.  Scalability
2.  Durability/sustainability of finished product
3.  Standardization/long-term potential
4.  Curriculum integration & educational aspects
5.  Organizing cluster effectively
6.  Ethics/social aspects
7.  Evaluating collaborative process & outcomes

DETAILED LIST OF ISSUES BY CATEGORY
(these are issues we as cluster must deal with)

1.  Scalability
	scaling the system (what is size goal?)
	need for high performance hardware
2.  Durability/sustainability of finished product
	maximizing use of off the shelf and public domain software
3.  Standardization/long-term potential
	developing standards for tools/objects/designs
	expanding community that can interact & sharing software
		(doc format? JAVA/SGML/HTML)
4.  Curriculum integration & educational aspects
	identifying perceived educational objectives early
	project-based work can't be adopted without content-based materials
	how to maintain user involvement
	how to prepare teachers & administrators for impact of our work
	where does the curriculum fit?
	how is curriculum developed?
5.  Organizing cluster effectively
	how to make the pieces fit
	how to manage in short time available
	break with traditional R&D culture
	how can we system engineer diverse components to educational relevance
	we don't know what CAPER is doing yet
6.  Ethics/social aspects
	how to utilize social aspects of collaborative spaces
	concerns for ethics/courtesy in the product
	process to demonstrate non-financial appreciation for teachers
7.  Evaluating collaborative process & outcomes
	difficulty evaluating collaborative components
	how to integrate various MUD/MOO, and assessment

CAPER ISSUES FOR CORE ARCHITECTURE TEAM

1.  How to integrate various MUD/MOO, and assessment
2.  Central support for curriculum development
3.  Ethics/courtesy issues
4.  How can CAETI prototypes be adapted for future mobile infrastructure
5.  Common way to get project information
6.  Hardware evolution
7.  Difficulty of evaluating collaborative components
8.  Need good information on availability of off-the-shelf and public domain software
9.  Overtaxing testbed moving from small to large
10.  Developing standards for tools/objects/designs
11.  System design to make the pieces fit

INDIVIDUAL TEAMS' DESIRED ASPECTS OF PRODUCT

mobility-friendly
authoring tools for multi-person quests
science opportunity analyzers for solar system observation
military training benefit
student ownership - private spaces
staff development CD-ROM for astronomy
access to telescopes and astronomy in classroom
mechanism for collaborative web access (way to meet on the web)
eduMUD supporting full year math/science (4th grade?)
image annotation tool
tools for logging & monitoring/reflecting in MUD
infrastructure for multimedia distributed MUD
math/science simulation integrated
teacher tools to support MOO/MUD data collection & selection
tool for implicit teaching of historical research skills
domain-independent problem-solving assessment tool
model-based MUD with integrated space-time for physics/math
dynamic MUD: modeling & simulation merged with text-based MUD
MOO++: C++ course in MOO
integrated system MUD/web viewer
authoring tools for multimedia objects (client-server)
curriculum objectives integrated into MUD
multi-media access
authentic application

BACKGROUND FOR CAPER CLUSTER ROADMAP

1.  Shared objectives
	coordinated product: constructive environment for collaborative learning
	basis for program and future collaborative learning environments
	inherently collaborative, integrated with all CAETI
2.  Responds to desiderata (7 issue categories above)
3.  Successfully used by DoDEA with positive results
4.  Fits CAETI framework
5.  Engaging to create and user

FIRST ROADMAP DRAFT FOR CAPER
-----------------------------

		NOW               NEXT            TESTBED           PRODUCT

MUDs:   text-based        multimedia authoring                    distributed
	single-server                                             spatial
	object oriented                                           multimedia
								  expanded executable entities
								  open

Modeling/  instances                                             declarative
Simulation individually invoked                                  continuum
	   single user                                           embedded
	   functionally mature                                   multi-user
								 model visualization
								 user-friendly
								 user-constructable

Multimedia  tedious development  better authoring                declarative
	    desktop                                              WYSIWYG
	    non-portable                                         yield robust products
	    single-user                                          net-accessible  
	    image annotation tools                               distributed/collaborative
			
Assessment  non-technical    handbook for literacy   tools for   mature tools for
	    interaction                              collab env. collab env.
               logging tool	    
            content/knowledge 
               tool

Protocols   each domain immature    multi-user      enable our      mature
	    all separate            web standards   pieces to       work together
			            framework 	    interoperate

Content     HOU              Math/science 4th grade  ----------improving------------------>
	    English Comp     Science Ops Analyzer
			     Math/science mod&sim
			     Civil war unit
			     C++ unit
			     prof dev for astronomy

SECOND ROADMAP DRAFT FOR CAPER
------------------------------

THREAD     CONTEXT pilot at:       6 MO            12 MO           18 MO

MUD         Literacy            Small space     Graphical user  Dynamic model
				in schools      interface,        integration
								Robust logging/
								monitoring (link to assmt)

Modeling &  Math/science     Net-accessible,    Collaborative   User-constructable,
simulation                                      authentic/      graphic            
                                                declarative     model visualization
					
Multi-media Tour of archival    Lesson/report   Single-user     distributed/
	 material on slavery    builder tools   desktop version collaborative version

CAPER WORKING GROUPS
--------------------

1.  MUD
BBN (Feurzeig)
Intermetrics Inc.= I2  (?)
GMU (Gerstner)
SUMMIT (DevMather)
LBL (Refling)
PARC (Sarawat)
CRESST (Diveil?)
UTAus (Syverson)
UNC (Prins)

2.  Modeling & simulation
IDA (Loughran)
GMU (Panoff)
BBN (Feurzeig
RAND (McArther)
UNC (Prins)
I2(?)
PARC (Saraswat)

3.  Multimedia
SUMMIT (Dev)
GMU (Fontana)
BBN (?)
UNC (Stotts)
I2 (Carlson)
LBL (Arsem)
UTAus (S&S)

4.  Assessment/content
UTAUS (Syverson)
PARC (Hughes)
BBN (Hunter)
SUMMIT (Mather)
GMU (Fontana)
CRESST (Dentil)
RAND (McArther)
I2 (?)
IDA (Loughran)
LBL (?)
DoDEA (Cheville)
UNC (Prins)

CAPER WORKING GROUP OBJECTIVES

Overall: Create distributed,collaborative and individual social learning in dynamic model-based 
environments

MUD: Constructing dynamic, constructive, model-based electronic multi-media environment
M&S: Integrating visual, dynamic user constructable, declarative (functionally real) M&S
Multi-media: Authentic, declarative, net-accessible, manipulative, user-accessible multi-media
Assessment: Qualitative/quantitative indicators
Protocols*: Ability to interoperate at multiple levels
Content: Define a focused set of achievable content goals

* note: protocols group will initially be latent until we understand better what protocols 
   will be required

>From [email-masked] Thu Jul  6 23:27:42 1995
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 23:25:07 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Mark Pullen)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Extending the roadmap
Cc: [email-masked]
Status: RO

CAPER folks,

Last week Kirstie Bellman asked us to extend our
early roadmap draft with more details.  I believe
the first step toward this is a multi-year projection
of our individual products, which we can then begin
to knit into a coherent whole.  I therefore ask that
you share with the CAPER cluster, via this email
alias ([email-masked]), a list of the significant
products you expect your work to bring forth. The
intention is to support creation of a greatly refined 
version of the roadmap I sent you yesterday. 

Although most of us are currently funded only for two
years, our contracts will be for longer periods.  So
I would ask that you take the longer view in this,
and describe the products you would produce, if left
to your own devices but provided funding over the
next three to four years.  Please provide a list of
expected results with intervals of six months, e.g.:

Now: turbo standalone text frammis 

+6 months: supercharged standalone text frammis

+12 months: supercharged standalone graphic frammis

+18 months: supercharged networked graphic frammis

+24 months: supercharged networked multimedia frammis
            with analytic geometry content

+30 months: supercharged networked multimedia 
            multiuser frammis

+36 months: supercharged networked multimedia 
            MUD-compatible multiuser frammis 

+42 months: supercharged networked multimedia
            MUD-compatible multi-user frammis
            with analytic geometry and calculus content

The above is of course fanciful and buzzword-laden.  Please
make your descriptions real, just a little longer (but NOT verbose),
and KEEP THE TIMEFRAMES REALISTIC.  Provide text notes following 
as needed to explain your ideas.

Again, my intent is to extend the "getting to know you" 
exercise of San Diego to the point where we will be able to talk
about how our work can integrate.  I will of course be working 
out the GMU list in the same format.

Please do your best to send the requested email by 12 July.  It 
will help prepare for a Core Architecture Team meeting on 14 July.

Mark

>From [email-masked] Thu Jul  6 23:32:06 1995
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 95 23:31:35 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Mark Pullen)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Next Cluster Meeting?
Status: RO

CAPER folks,

Although plans are not yet firm, it seems likely we will
want to meet in San Diego sometime in September, in
conjunction with the MUD demo now being planned.  I 
don't have any other details but I do want to let you
know this event is on the horizon.  If any of you can
provide more details on the anticipated event, please 
let the mail group ([email-masked]) know what is
being planned and when.  

More details when available.

Mark

>From [email-masked] Fri Jul  7 10:29:42 1995
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 10:01:24 -0500
To: Mark Pullen <[email-masked]>
From: Wally Feurzeig <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: Next Cluster Meeting?
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
        [email-masked]
Status: RO

Mark,

For your information, and that of others in the CAPER cluster, I have been
working with Kirstie and Chris Landauer to help organize the second
workshop on MUDs and Schools (MUDshop II.)  It will be at NRaD in San Diego
from September 6 through 8.  The natural time for the cluster to meet is
around then, perhaps in conjunction with the MUDshop.

I'm not sure who will be invited to participate in the MUDshop but it
certainly will include those actively involved in the CAPER MUD subcluster
and perhaps everyone in the entire CAPER cluster.

You should be hearing more about this soon.

Wally

-----

>CAPER folks,
>
>Although plans are not yet firm, it seems likely we will
>want to meet in San Diego sometime in September, in
>conjunction with the MUD demo now being planned.  I
>don't have any other details but I do want to let you
>know this event is on the horizon.  If any of you can
>provide more details on the anticipated event, please
>let the mail group ([email-masked]) know what is
>being planned and when.
>
>More details when available.
>
>Mark

>From [email-masked] Fri Jul  7 10:57:04 1995
From: Vijay Saraswat <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Next Cluster Meeting?
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:54:00 PDT
Status: RO

Two things.

We are nearly ready to accomodate folks in the Caper cluster onto
Pueblo. The invitations, together with references to material on
Pueblo will go out this weekend. Initially the character names
will be first names; unless there is a clash.

Second, it was unclear to me from Mark's message whether Kirstie
is planning another meeting in San Diego explicitly around MUD
demos. The referene could be to the MUDShop.  MUDShop meeting is
intended to be a separate, fairly small, activity from CAETI
involving primarily the community of folks who have already been
active in MUDs and education. There will be overlap of people
with CAPER. However I don't think the MUDShop can function as a
CAPER meeting. The workshop will be Sep 6 (Wed)-8 (Fri).  Given
that Sep 4 (Mon) is a holiday (long weekend), and people would
like to use Sep 5 to travel, it seems to me that that would make
it difficult to hold the CAPER cluster meeting that week.

Let me renew my offer to host the cluster meeting in Phoenix, in
conjunction with a small half-/one-day workshop with the Pueblo
community focussed on sharing the experience of running a
functional, successful MUD program within a school curriculum.
Perhaps if there is a need to be in San Dieo as well, we might
consider a one-day workshop in Phoenix immediately prior to the
cluster meeting in San Diego.

>From [email-masked] Fri Jul  7 11:05:20 1995
From: <[email-masked]>
Date: 	Fri, 7 Jul 1995 08:02:55 -0700
To: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Next CAPER Cluster Meeting and the second MUDshop
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Status: RO

Folx,

The second MUDshop is not the CAPER meeting, but since all CAPER participants
will be invited to it, it makes some sense to have the CAPER meeting nearby.
The dates are as specified (6-8 September at NRaD and SAIC in San Diego), and
we expect part of the MUDshop program to include demos and tours of various
MUD environments.

more later,
cal

MUDshop II: Learning Spaces
(ARPA Workshop on Muds in Education, Training, and the Workplace)
6-8 September 1995
San Diego, California
sponsored by Kirstie Bellman of ARPA
co-hosted by LorRaine Duffy of NRaD and Colleen Emmeneggar of SAIC

Program Schedule

Monday, September 4 is Labor Day.
Tuesday, September 5 reserved for travel,
	but just like last time,
	there will be an informal get-together in the evening.
The conference is all day Wednesday and Thursday,
and either all day or only until noon Friday (not decided yet).

>From [email-masked] Fri Jul  7 14:19:50 1995
Date: 7 Jul 95 14:22:07 U
From: "Bill Carlson" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: A Vote: Meet In Phoenix
Status: RO

I think it is essential that we learn how the Pueblo MUD is being used to teach
students in Phoenix, and as soon as possible.

I think the above need dominates any rationale for the meeting being in San
Diego.

I vote against split meetings (ie, a day in Phoenix and a day in San Diego). 
There is too much time wasted in such meetings.

I vote against any meetings in parallel with MUDShop.  Running a meeting in
conjunction with another meeting doesn't work out very well - the attendees
jump back and forth instead of focusing on one agenda at a time and addressing
that agenda in the most effective way.

Hence, my vote is for a meeting in Phoenix separated by at least a week from
the MUDShop.

Question - when will the teachers in Phoenix be most willing and able to spend
time with us?  Any chance we can talk to some students?   I'd like to hear
first hand the "voice of the customer" instead of having the comments filtered
through intermediaries.

Regards,
Bill Carlson

>From [email-masked] Fri Jul  7 20:07:17 1995
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 95 19:09:32 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Mark Pullen)
To: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Next Cluster Meeting?
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked]
Status: RO

Vijay,

We don't need to meet in San Diego but we do need
to meet.  And those of us who are not immersed in
MUDs need to be exposed to them thoroughly and soon.

Having picked up only partial information about the 
MUDshop at our meeting, my intention in sending 
email on this to the group was to find out more and
suggest that a cluster meeting in conjunction might
work.  That idea was successful, your reply helped
to inform me.  

I would like to take this discussion off the
email list for a while, to learn more about the MUDshop
from you and try to work out alternatives for the
meeting.  Please email me with details of the MUDshop
and also the small workshop you have proposed.  Then we
can come back to the caper mailgroup with a proposal.

Mark

>From [email-masked] Fri Jul  7 20:07:49 1995
From: Vijay Saraswat <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Re: A Vote: Meet In Phoenix
Date: Fri, 7 Jul 1995 15:35:37 PDT
Status: RO

>>>>> On Fri, 7 Jul 1995 13:33:11 -0700, [email-masked] (John Slatin) said:
    J> Mime-Version: 1.0
    J> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

    J> A quick suggestion in response to Bill's proposal that we meet in Phoenix:

    J> before we schedule too many meetings, I'd like to suggest that we get
    J> permission to "observe" the learning activities on Pueblo for a while
    J> electronically, and perhaps schedule some electronic meetings with the
    J> Phoenix teachers so we can get a feel for the way they and we might
    J> function in a MOO environment, and for the kinds of questions that *can't*
    J> effectively be dealt with there.  THEN we can schedule a session in
    J> Phoenix.

Hi John --- 

Maybe I was not explicit... This weekend we will be creating
characters in Pueblo for all the folks who signed the CAPER
attendance list I have (or a fuller list that Joe Gerstner/Mark
Pullen might provide). People on Pueblo have been working hard to
put together a ``Moobie Manual'' for all you new ``immigrants''
to our community :-). So yes indeed, shortly you folks will
shortly have the opportunity to join us online.

Note however, that ou are not likely to see any significant
activity next week. There are very few teachers and students
around. The next MOO Camp begins (funding permitting) July 17,
and runs for three weeks. There will be a lot going on then.

Best,
Vijay

>From [email-masked] Sun Jul  9 00:43:06 1995
Date: 8 Jul 1995 21:26:06 -0700
From: "Harry O Neil" <[email-masked]>
Subject: Re: A Vote- Meet In Phoenix
To: "Bill Carlson" <[email-masked]>, [email-masked]
Status: RO

        Reply to:   RE>A Vote: Meet In Phoenix

i vote with bill
harry

--------------------------------------
Date: 7/7/95 11:24 AM
To: Harry O Neil
From: Bill Carlson
Date: 7 Jul 95 14:22:07 U
From: "Bill Carlson" <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Subject: A Vote: Meet In Phoenix

I think it is essential that we learn how the Pueblo MUD is being used to
teach
students in Phoenix, and as soon as possible.

I think the above need dominates any rationale for the meeting being in San
Diego.

I vote against split meetings (ie, a day in Phoenix and a day in San Diego). 
There is too much time wasted in such meetings.

I vote against any meetings in parallel with MUDShop.  Running a meeting in
conjunction with another meeting doesn't work out very well - the attendees
jump back and forth instead of focusing on one agenda at a time and
addressing
that agenda in the most effective way.

Hence, my vote is for a meeting in Phoenix separated by at least a week from
the MUDShop.

Question - when will the teachers in Phoenix be most willing and able to
spend
time with us?  Any chance we can talk to some students?   I'd like to hear
first hand the "voice of the customer" instead of having the comments
filtered
through intermediaries.

Regards,
Bill Carlson

>From [email-masked] Thu Jul 13 00:21:45 1995
Date: Thu, 13 Jul 1995 00:21:24 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Pullen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Caper Cluster Participation in MUDshop II (fwd)
To: [email-masked]
Status: RO

CAPER folks,

Based on input from more experienced MUD hands, I have 
concluded that it does not make sense to attempt a
cluster meeting at either the Phoneix event or the
San Diego MUDshop.  I would encourage each of you to
consider attending either or both of these.  A note on
the MUDshop from Wally Feurzeig is appended; I hope we
will hear more about Phoenix from Vijay Saraswat shortly 
(including how we may best participate electronically if
we are not present physically).

As to a physical, in-person cluster meeting, we do need
to have one of those soon to get on with planning for
our colsolidated effort.  My current thought is to 
have a meeting some time in September at GMU (in Fairfax
VA, near DC).  I will get back to you opn this when I am able to 
coordinate the date with other CAETI activities.  If you
have hard constraints on meeting dates in September, please let
me know by email.

Mark

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 1995 16:46:41 -0500
From: Wally Feurzeig <[email-masked]>
To: Mark Pullen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Caper Cluster Participation in MUDshop II 

Mark,

All those in the Caper cluster are potential invitees to MUDshop II, which
will be at NRaD, San Diego September 6 - 8.  Those who are interested in
attending will need to send me a brief message -- one or two lines --
expressing their specific interest in MUDs and schools and any relevant
work they've done in the area.  This will get them on the invitee list.
They will then have to send in a 1 - 3 white paper describing their work
interests as per the attached message from Chris Landauer, who is working
with Kirstie and a small program committee on the MUDshop arrangements.

Wally

                                -------

Date:   Fri, 7 Jul 1995 07:44:14 -0700
From:   [email-masked]
To:     [email-masked]
Subject: MUDshop II nominations

MUDshop II: Learning Spaces
ARPA Workshop on Muds in Education, Training, and the Workplace
6-8 September 1995
San Diego, California
co-hosted by NRaD and SAIC

schedule of preparation events

collect initial invitee list
        (this means name, e-mail address,
        and a one sentence description of who they are -
        i do plan to invite everyone who was invited last time)
compose invitation with program committee
i will send invitations to submit white papers
program committee chooses 100 attendees

requirements

this time we will insist on a 1-3 page white paper from each participant,
and we will choose the invitees using them
(these will be like the introductions we got for the first MUDshop)

i plan to send out the original announcement and invitation next friday,
and ask that the white papers be sent to me by august 8
(the idea is that we mainly want folx who are already working in this area,
and they should be able to describe their work interests relatively quickly)

program

monday, september 4 is labor day,
tuesday, september 5 reserved for travel,
        but just like last time,
        there will be an informal get-together in the evening -
the conference is all day wednesday and thursday,
and either all day or only until noon friday (we need to choose) -

either way,
this workshop will be shorter than the first one,
so the structure must be more focussed -
since it is also larger,
we think we will need some parallel tracks

there will be some common discussion wednesday morning,
then working groups wednesday afternoon and all day thursday,
then report back friday morning -
wednesday and thursday evenings are reserved for demos
and other informal discussions

this time there will be an ARPA-published proceedings,
containing all the (possibly revised) white papers and working group reports

we believe that the working groups will be generally the same as last time,
one for computer stuff,
one for people stuff,
one for administration stuff
(the groups overlap, but they do have different concerns)

the working groups may include some talks and will include discussion
of questions collected during the morning,
and also seeded by the issues that were raised in the first MUDshop -
we will send out those group reports before the workshop,
so folx can think about them

some questions

how much effort should we expend on making MUDs more visual?
how much effort should we expend on making MUDs distributed?
conflict between evaluation and privacy
challenges for information management in simulations

how are MUDs being used in education, training, and work environments?

                        ------------

>From [email-masked] Sat Jul 15 13:06:07 1995
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 95 13:04:51 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Mark Pullen)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Cluster meeting
Status: RO

CAPER folks,

Based on the comments received it appears the me to
best time to meet would be the week of 25 September.
Too many conflicts before that.  And by then we should
all be on contract.

I checked into plans for the CAETI Kickoff meeting, it
appears that will probably happen mid-October at a 
West Coast location.  So I would like to plan an 
East Coast location for the CAPER meeting.  Therefore
I suggest a meeting at George Mason University 27-28
September.  GMU is in Fairfax, 1/2 hour drive (non-rush hour) 
from both National and Dulles Airports.  There are plenty
of accommodations around and you can have a chance to 
visit other DC attractions (Smithsonian, NSF, ONR,...).

I do expect there will be more cluster meeting time
at the CAETI Kickoff, but the challenge we face in terms
of pulling together an architecture and coordinated
development/deployment plan is large enough that probably
both meetings together will only just get us started.
I believe after these meetings we will be able to do 
much of our coordination electronically and avoid the time
and dollar cost of travel.  But for these initial steps
I believe we need to be physically together as much as
possible.  (One measure of CAPER's success will be whether it is
possible to start a similar activity in year 2000 WITHOUT
a physical meeting.)

Please send me your comments on this and your availability 
for the proposed dates.

Mark

>From [email-masked] Sat Jul 15 14:04:12 1995
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 95 14:01:34 EDT
From: [email-masked] (Mark Pullen)
To: [email-masked]
Subject: GMU contribution to Extending the Roadmap
Cc: [email-masked]
Status: RO

CAPER folks,

Below is GMU's first cut at a set of GMU expected results.  One
thing we learned in developing it was that it is going to 
be hard to make a coherent merge of various projects; for
now the four major GMU activities are listed separately.
As with the lists I requested from you, this is an evolving
document (I'm sure some GMU folks will send more corrections when
they get this one!) but it will let us get started thinking
abotu how the pieces of CAPER can fit together.

I am embarrassed to note that due to email failure here,
I did not make my own requested date on this!  As it
worked out the Core Architecture meeting did not happen on 
the 14th either.  So, with thanks to those who have already
sent me input, let's try again.  Taking the appended as a
moderately-good example, please send to [email-masked]
a list of your expected results starting with what you have
available now (which need not be anything) and proceeding
at 6 month intervals at least to end of contract (I would
encourage you to go to 48 months).  This should be based
on your proposal plus any thinking you have done since the
San Diego meeting, it is NOT expected to be in a form we can
plus together for an integrated product (that will take a lot
of work both over the net and at our cluster meetings).
If you have multiple projects feel free to make more than one
list- strive for clarity (but please be succint, brevity is a 
virtue).

I would really appreciate receiving this by 21 July, to be 
used in preparation for the 25 July Core Architecture meeting.

Regards,

Mark
===============================================================================
GMU-CAETI Contributions to CAPER Roadmap
========================================

Project: MASTER (Modeling and Simulation Technologies for Education Reform)

Templates for introducing research into the curriculum, using   interactive
modeling and simulation on network accessible supercomputers.

PI:  Mark Pullen, major contributions from GMU-CSI (George Michaels),
     Shodor Foundation (Bob Panoff)

Time        Expected Results
----        ----------------
Now         - Prototype courseware.

+6 Mos      - HTML version of key integrated science, math, and
              writing skills parts of the DoDDS curriculum, with
              links to sections of the NCTM (math) and NAS (science)
              standards.

            - Prototype of template complete for first
              module focusing on crystal formation (science) and
              related measurements of average distances, energies,
              etc (math: statistics, averages, data handling etc).

+12 Mos     - Complete first integrated Math/science module with
              Web and local processor simulations, integrated
              curriculum, teacher and student guides.

+18 Mos     - Database of results and generation of FAQ's from
              actual use. Second module devlopment, addding QT
              and other Multimedia recording into simulations.

+24 Mos     - Investigate and integrate if appropriate M00/MUD
              environment as test of learning tools.

            - Begin multimedia incorporation of electronic lab
              notebooks and portfolios. Intelligent agent for
              distributed, remote simulation incorporated.

            - Net course for teachers in computational science
              prototyped.

            - Initiate 3rd module development.

+30 Mos     - Incorporate distributed collabration tools for
              real time interaction of geographically dispersed
              classrooms and mentors, including full whiteboard
              and videoconference capability.

            - Third module delivered.

            - Begin Civil War (a.k.a. War of Northern Agression)
              battle simulation development.

+36 Mos     - Begin 4th math/science module development.

            - Civil War simulation field tested and delivered.

            - Investigate use of DITS to guide assessment of
              learning.

            - Development of concept maps in simulation developments.

+42 Mos     - Integrate science resources from variety of on-line
              exploratorium-type exhibits, science museums,
              interactive labs.

            - Match to DoDDS curriculum in templates.

            - Electronic lab notebooks fully multimedia compliant.

+48 Mos     - Complete observational and computational science
              course, demonstrating integrated hands on and
              simulation learning environments developing
              balanced skills in science, mathematics, and
              expository writing

------------------------------------------------------------------

Project: MOO Delivery of C++

A demonstration of university-level course adapted to the MOO environment.

PI:  Eugene Norris (major contribution from Richard Carver)

Time        Expected Results
----        ----------------
Now         - Automated course management software in alpha test
              for a desktop platform
            - C++ course text materials in electronic form

+6 Mos      - Operation of prototype MOO client-server system
            - integration and alpha test of courseware and text
              content matter

+12 Mos     - Alpha test of Unix template
            - Web-based course materials linked with server
            - Demonstration of course delivery for teachers

+18 Mos     - demonstraton of MOO prototype with basic multimedia
              tools
            - Demonstration of Web-based course in C++
            - Assistance to DoDEA schools in presenting prototype
              course

+24 Mos     - Demonstration of cross-platform prototype GUI MOOs
              with Web/multimedia interfaces

+30 Mos     - Demonstration of suite of course authoring tools
              for GUI MOO environment

+36 Mos     - Integrated MOO/authoring tools package demonstrated

+42 Mos     - Distibution assistance to DoDEA of course/MOO/
              authoring package
------------------------------------------------------------------

Project: Intelligent Multimedia and Thinking Skills (MMTS)

Software shell for generating multimedia delivery systems;
environment for developing intelligent user assistance for
eductaional software

PIs:  Lynn Fontana, George Tecuci

Time        Expected Results
----        ----------------
Now         - Slavery  multimedia module.

+6 Mos      - Formative evaluation on slavery module by DoDea
              teacher complete; design of Disciple-ITS environment

+12 Mos     - Alpha version of  phase one MMTS complete; functioning
              kernel of Disciple-ITS environment

+18 Mos     - Beta version phase one MMTS complete; initial prototype
              of Disciple-ITS used to guide teachers/students through
              one module

+24 Mos     - Alpha version of phase two MMTS complete, with
              integrated Disciple-ITS application

+30 Mos     - BETA version of  Record keeping function and
              customized production console for MMTS.

+36 Mos     - Beta version of fully integrated MMTS software
              with new curriculum module for MMTS; Disciple-ITS
              available for Beta use by other groups

+42 Mos     - Revised MMTS software for access by broader community

+48 Mos     - version 2 of the Disciple-ITS environment

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Project: Internet-Based Distance Education

PI:  Mark Pullen, major contributions from AB Technologies (Chuck Schettler
     lead), plus various GMU faculty (see below)

Now         - Web-based interactive grauate-level course on
              Internet usage (GMU LRNG572), with competence-based
              testing for Fall '95 (Brad Cox) 

            - Establish Network Assistance Center to help DoDDS
              sites up the connectivity learning curve and assist
              in communications with CAETI performers

+6 Mos      - Web-based graduate course for teachers, follow-on 
              to LRNG572, planning and executing technology
              integration (Lynn Fontana and Chris Dede)

            - NAC fully functional in support of all CAETI sites
              and performers; also supports CAEPER cluster
              intergration

+12 Mos     - Web/MOO based graduate course for teachers
              of computer science: C++ programming language 
              (Gene Norris; see MOO work above)

+18 Mos and forward: continuing NAC activities for coordination,
              integrated with a CAETI demo facility; routine delivery 
              of courses by GMU and others to DoDS teachers for 
              graduate credit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

>From [email-masked] Sat Jul 15 15:29:44 1995
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 14:22:41 -0500
To: [email-masked]
From: [email-masked] (John Slatin)
Subject: Timetable from UT Austin
Status: RO

Here's a copy of the timetable Peg Syverson and I sent to Mark offlist:

Now: proven assessment model (California Learning Record) designed for
traditional classroom

+ 6 months: detailed functional specifications for transposing CRL model to
MOOspace based on observations of teachers and students in existing MOOs
and MUDs.

+ 12 months: online prototype for text-based MOOspace, preliminary
documentation

+18 months: refinement of online prototype for text-based MOOspace, revised 
documentation; limited multimedia capability; specifications for
integrating MOOspace observations with other environments, online and
offline

+24 months: fully developed Virtual Learning Record (text and image) &
documentation. Prepare and train teachers for classroom pilot testing.

+ 30 months: prototype for integrated Learning Record. PIlot testing of
model in DoD pilot schools.

+ 36 months. Refinements to model based on teacher and student feedback.
Prepare teachers for moderation readings for large-scale assessment.

+42 months. Introduce Virtual Learning Record in model schools. Conduct
moderation readings in pilot schools.

+48 months. Full scale moderation readings and final evaluation of the
assessment model.

John Slatin
Director, Computer Writing & Research Lab
Division of Rhetoric and Composition and
Department of English
University of Texas at  Austin
Austin, TX 78712
(512)471-8743/fax (512)471-4353
[email-masked]

>From [email-masked] Mon Jul 17 08:58:25 1995
Date: Mon, 17 Jul 1995 05:52:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Mark Pullen <[email-masked]>
Subject: Shareable document formats and communal server for CAETI (fwd)
To: [email-masked]
Status: RO

Comments? (please send direct to author unless you want to have
internal CAPER discussion first)

Mark

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Sat, 15 Jul 1995 15:39:29 -0400 (EDT)
From: Daniel D Suthers <[email-masked]>
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked], [email-masked], [email-masked],
    [email-masked], [email-masked]
Subject: Shareable document formats and communal server for CAETI

Core team (and others): 

Below is a summary of why we are considering using SGML-based documents
and the Hyper-G server to meet our WWW and communal hypermedia database
needs in the CAETI project.  Although I'm not sure what kind of
decisions your team makes, I submit this to you because I feel that this
framework could meet the needs of most other CAETI contractors for a
communal hypermedia database and server, and to solicit feedback on the
acceptability of this choice.  Use of better known first-generation
servers such as NCSA or CERN would require that we reinvent some of this
existing functionality (a 5 year project now involving tens of
programmers), so we would prefer to go with the second generation
server, but would like some idea of the chances of being able to install
it in the DoDDS sites.

One reason for choosing Hyper-G was our commitment to SGML-based formats
for instructional material, including documents supplied by us and
created by students and teachers, as well as object descriptions,
simulation scenarios, advice strategies, etc. Such material, being
expensive to construct, should be treated as a long term resource.
Reuse of this material may be desired on different platforms and by
different software, possibly for unanticipated purposes.  Such reuse
requires representations that are readable by a wide variety of media
tools already available today and being developed for a variety of
future applications, and that support easy translations from one form to
another.  Clearly, representational standards are desired, but we don't
want standards to limit future functionality either. The solution is to
standardize the meta-language for describing media formats, rather than
to standardize the formats themselves.  The Standard Generalized Markup
Language (SGML) is a widely used meta-language for defining annotation
languages in publishing and network applications.  It provides a
standard way to define document types and to define translations between
document types.  Thus, by using SGML as a standard encoding scheme, our
architecture (1) is protected from being locked into any proprietary
vendor format, (2) is guaranteed to be able to take advantage of any
evolving technologies involving SGML, and (3) allows information to be
stored, re-used and exchanged between different components that may be
used with the framework. SGML-based tools are available on a variety of
platforms, with a noticeable recent surge in releases of GUI SGML tools
for Windows platforms.

See http://etext.virginia.edu/bin/tei-tocs?div=DIV1&id=SG for a primer
on SGML and http://www.sil.org/sgml/sgml.html for access to a variety of
SGML resources. Other project leaders interested in using SGML-based
documents (regardless of your interest in Hyper-G) are invited to
contact me so I can provide assistance and we can work together towards
interoperability.

We need a server capable of supporting a shared database for
collaborative learning activities, and capable of serving and linking
multimedia as well as capable of providing standard WWW service.  There
are already a number of servers that have been developed for HTML based
documents on the WWW (e.g., the NCSA HTTP server, the CERN server,
Netscape's server, etc.).  However, the current WWW servers suffer from
some critical limitations in the context of our needs:

 1.  They were not designed to handle more than a few hundred documents.
 2.  Facilities for access control are inadequate.
 3.  Clients cannot edit the documents that they are viewing.
 4.  There is no inherent support for attribute and content searches. 
 5.  They do not serve arbitrary SGML documents.
 6.  They all store the annotations as part of the document itself,
     rather than separately, and thus only link between portions of
     texts, cannot follow links in reverse, and cannot guarantee link
     consistency. 

We are investigating the use of the Hyper-G server, developed at the
Graz University of Technology, in Austria.  Hyper-G provides several
enhancements over first-generatoin servers, enhancements that can be
used to the advantage of the CAETI project:

 1.  It handles thousands of documents efficiently, using its own
     object-oriented database and hierarchical clustering of documents. 
     Thus, large databases of instructional material and student and
     teacher authored documents can be supported. The server can handle
     the needs of multiple classes and of multiple CAETI contractors'
     software at once.

 2.  It provides for full access control at the document and cluster
     levels. Student privacy can be preserved as needed, and teachers
     can condition accessibility of materials based on prior work or on
     curricular requirements. 

 3.  Clients can edit documents and links remotely and reinsert the
     revisions in the database. Thus, teachers will be able to author
     new materials and students will be able to submit work from client
     machines at arbitrary locations (including home).  Active
     collaboration between teachers and students at different geographic
     locations will also be possible.

 4.  There is full support for keyword, title, and content searches,
     optionally focused on selected document clusters. The database can
     also be viewed and accessed as if it were a hierarchical file
     system, or traversed using hypermedia links, providing for three
     different methods of access. This can support facilities for
     students to find materials relevant to their projects, and teachers
     and developers to reuse materials authored by other teachers and
     developers.

 5.  It will soon support storage and serving of documents coded under
     arbitrary SGML DTDs. The database can contain images, video,
     postscript, and data documents as well as textual and SGML-based
     documents.  These can be served in their original form, or when
     contacted by a WWW client the SGML documents can be converted to
     HTML for viewing.  Thus the database should be able to support the
     requirements of most if not all CAETI projects requiring database
     server capabilities.

 6.  It stores hyperlinks separately from the documents, thus supporting
     links between segments of arbitrary media, such as portions of
     audio and video streams. (Links embedded in text documents, as in
     HTML, can only point to visual media documents as a whole, not to
     segments therein, and of course cannot originate from nontextual
     documents.) This approach also enables applications to follow links
     in both directions, and enables Hyper-G to guarantee link
     consistency.  Students and teachers will be able to construct more
     sophisticated document collections.  Automated analysis of the
     link database could support certain aspects of our evaluation of
     the use of the system.

Other functionalities of note that are either available or currently
under development in Hyper-G include support for HTML3.0, PDF, and VRML;
server support for scripts (similar to CGI), an SQL interface, and JAVA;
client support for local databases, access to email, news, and ftp; and
MS Word style sheets for authoring Hyper-G documents.

Hyper-G is freely available for academic research. The server available
on most if not all Unix platforms (including Linux), and is currently
being ported to Windows NT. Hyper-G clients are currently available on
Unix (both tty and X windows) and Windows platforms, with a port to
Macintosh underway.  Further information on Hyper-G can be obtained at
http://info.iicm.tu-graz.ac.at.  By accessing this site one also obtains
a demonstration of how Hyper-G translates SGML annotated information to
HTML on-the-fly for service to a WWW client.

Well, that's my argument; thanks for your consideration. 
================================================================
Dan Suthers         	| Learning Research & Development Center
[email-masked]   	| University of Pittsburgh
(412) 624-7036 voice	| 3939 O'Hara Street
(412) 624-9149 fax	| Pittsburgh, PA 15260
(412) 363-3992 home	| http://www.pitt.edu/~suthers/
================================================================