[QTI] Re: Hi and some questions

[Niall Barr]

>   there are no other formats that really compete with QTI, it makes
>   sense for publishers of items to demand support for this format by
I think that publisher demand is what drove the creation of the Common 
Cartridge profile - publishers such as Pearson and McGraw-Hill produce 
lots of items in QTI 1.2.1 format, but have difficulty ensuring that 
they work on all VLEs. The Common Cartridge profile should provide a way 
of being sure of interoperability, but only with a fairly limited subset 
of QTI 1.2.1.
> this is because QTI 2.x is extremely complex and in many cases not
> sufficiently specified.  So you have to put in a lot of work to get no
> or only very limited interoperability.
>   
QTI 2.x is much more clearly specified than 1.x was, but it is complex 
because it aims to cover a great variety of requirements. There is a 
subset of 2.0 (using the predefined template processing) which is fairly 
simple to implement, and also it is usually fairly easy to get answers 
from the authors where the specification lacks clarity :-) .

There probably is a need for a much larger set of example items for all 
the specifications to help developers with interoperability, but 
generating and documenting good test items takes both a lot of time and 
a detailed knowledge of the intricacies of the specification. (I'd be 
happy to do it though, if someone will pay for my time.)

Niall.