The stated intention of this working meeting organised by JISC CETIS, and held at the University of Bolton, UK, on 12 January 2010 was to:
'[...] bring together participants in a range of standards organisations and communities to look at the future for interoperability standards in the education sector. The key topic for consideration is the relationship between specifications developed in informal communities and formal standards organisations and industry consortia. The meeting will also seek to explore the role of informal specification communities in rapidly developing, implementing and testing specifications in an open process before submission to more formal, possibly closed, standards bodies.' 
Participation was by invitation, and delegates were requested to submit position papers prior to the meeting. By the day of the event, 17 papers had been submitted; there are now 20 available on the meeting wiki, as well as several post-event blog summaries and reflections . Joining the 40 or so in-person participants were a number of interested parties who followed the meeting via Twitter, some adding commentary and questions (using the Twitter hashtag cetisfis).
The UK's Joint Information Systems Committee Centre for Educational Technology and Interoperability Standards (JISC CETIS)  has been, since the late 1990s, the organisation central to the development, uptake and implementation of interoperability standards for educational technology in the UK. With JISC CETIS staff having served at various points on most of the international standards bodies operating in this domain, they were well-placed to bring together an experienced group for a working meeting to discuss the future of interoperability in this area.
In his opening address, JISC CETIS Director Adam Cooper emphasised that the impetus behind this meeting was a sense of growing dissatisfaction amongst many involved in standards development and implementation within education. Where the original intentions of more-or-less formal bodies such as the Institute for Electrical and Electronics Engineers Learning Technology Standards Committee (IEEE LTSC) , the IMS Global Learning Consortium (IMS GLC)  and the International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO)  were laudable, there has been an increasing feeling that the resource put into supporting these standards has not always borne the hoped-for fruit.
Meanwhile a few locally driven interoperability efforts such as Simple Web-service Offering Repository Deposit (SWORD)  and eXchanging Course Related Information (XCRI)  have appeared to work fairly well, and implementation of light-weight, non-education-specific specifications such as the Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting (OAI-PMH) , Search/Retrieval via URL (SRU) , Atom and RSS have shown signs of affording some real benefits.
Developments in the Web environment have also changed the landscape, with cultural expectations of greater openness, grass-roots community involvement, and agile development methodologies becoming common-place. Moreover, after years of being confined to the realm of exciting-but-far-in-the-future, real potential is starting to emerge in such areas as linked data and the Semantic Web, and open standards for identity, rights and identifiers.
More recently, the current economic climate and attendant concerns about funding cuts prompt the question, as a remote participant asked via Twitter: '[w]hen budgets are cut, is standardisation a luxury or a necessity?' 
So, it was deemed time for a fresh look to find the best way forward in ensuring effective interoperability. While many angles and aspects of interoperability standards could have been tackled, for a one-day event, it was decided to focus on systemic issues around the formal / informal axis of standards development.
The meeting was wisely co-located with the 40th meeting of the European Committee for Standardization Workshop for Learning Technologies (CEN WS-LT)  on 11 January , which ensured a large attendance for both meetings, even with transport problems predicted due to heavy snowfall. Originally expecting a turn-out of around 20 from the list of invitees, the JISC CETIS organisers were surprised and delighted that nearly 40 people ended up attending, from a number of countries and standards bodies. While this made for a cramped meeting room, it also made for a rich discussion.
International communities around standards development and implementation were well represented, including participants from:
About a quarter of participants came from outside the UK, including Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Greece, Norway and the USA.
Many delegates were heard to say during breaks that the position papers submitted are such a rich resource in themselves that just collecting them would have made the event worthwhile. While there is not space here to summarise the complexities of positions put forward, it is safe to say that they represented broad agreement with the impetus behind this meeting.
There was also a large degree of commonality across the papers in terms of barriers to useful standardisation for interoperability, and possible solutions. There was little that could be deemed contentious; perhaps only opinions about the best business models for funding what is a very expensive process, a process that one participant noted could be seen as a waste of many talented people's time.
The role of public projects, open source developments, and commercial vendors within standards efforts has long been an interesting, and sometimes controversial topic within the educational technology domain. For instance, one paper stated that only open markets can stir the innovation needed to create really good educational technology , while others spoke from a paradigm of public funding. Later discussions at the meeting touched on how interoperability standards in education have sometimes been seen as a way to stop commercial vendors taking control of what some feel is inherently a public good. In contrast, someone made the point that innovation rarely comes out of Higher Education, and that the best teaching and learning standards emerge from industries and disciplines with a high stake in their students' successful learning, such as aviation and medicine.
However, these issues represented but a small proportion of the papers and discussion. Perhaps more destructive to the forward movement of effective standards development is the number of paradoxes which remain difficult to resolve. Some of the tensions that emerged at this stage included:
Knowing that discussion of these issues can suck up days of meeting time, the organising team at JISC CETIS decided that the group was going to need to focus on agreement on the most potentially effective solutions proposed.
JISC CETIS Assistant Director Lorna Campbell ably facilitated the entire day's proceedings, starting with an open plenary discussion. Delegates were asked what they felt were the most important issues to go on the table, given the limited time available, with a focus on what they would like to improve about the process of developing interoperability standards for education.
The need for less fragmentation of effort and more effective use of the available resources for standardisation underlay most of this discussion. Initial broad ideas included improving quality by increasing transparency and inclusiveness relating to review of standards throughout their lifecycle. Or, as JISC CETIS Director Adam Cooper said, 'motherhood and apple pie'.
What about more specific points raised?
Some delegates raised discussion points about the initial stages of specification and standards development, including:
The need to balance effort between abstract and long-term formal standards development and concrete, implementation-ready specifications work was key to the entire day. Rather than asking what is the best standards development process?, the question should be what are different standards processes good for? Ideas about specification development included:
Acknowledging that there are times when formal standardisation is appropriate, most participants agreed that actually teasing out the details of how and when (and if) that process should happen is important further work. Some other ideas raised included:
Achieving interoperability, and quality of standards, is intimately connected with adoption issues. If specifications and standards aren't adopted, feedback cannot be included in the development cycle. And if appropriate support for adoption is not given, there will not be wide uptake.
In the afternoon, the meeting broke into discussion groups, each of which had the task of discussing and feeding back on the following questions:
Groups were then required to identify ideas under the following headings and produce a single statement of agreement under each of them:
The final output required was a concise statement to which the whole group subscribed.
When the groups reported back to the meeting, Lorna Campbell facilitated a session where the groups' responses were collated, and their points analysed to see if agreement could be reached on a final group statement. If any individual point was rejected by anyone in the room, that point was removed from the group statement. The rejected statements were left on the board however, and are still available alongside the agreed points on the meeting wiki . The final group statements under each heading were as follows:
The organisers of this meeting tried not to bite off more than they could chew. They created a fairly tightly defined remit for discussion, and kept the afternoon meeting firmly to an agenda of summarising only those points on which consensus could be reached. Even so, there were many people around the table, and not much time for coming to a deeply considered consensus. The issues raised have been bubbling around for a number of years in a number of forums, and there are no easy answers.
The richness of experience and knowledgeable opinion contained within the position papers and the plenary discussion notes is perhaps best not summarised too early by a few bullet-points. However, JISC CETIS Assistant Director Scott Wilson has made a brave attempt on the meeting wiki and is welcoming feedback . So, thinking together has begun, and for those who have responsibilities in the technical standards development domain, there is an opportunity now to join the discussion.
Author's note: N.B.: JISC CETIS asks that if you blog or otherwise publish on this issue, that you use the tag cetis-fis and if you Tweet about it, use the hashtag cetisfis.
* I would like to thank Tore Hoel of the ICOPER Best Practice Network, for providing all the photographs in this report. Tore can be contacted via:
Web site: http://hoel.nu/wordpress/ or http://www.icoper.org/