[QTI] QTI 2.1 draft specification withdrawn

[Niall Barr]

Hi,

I think that both Steve and Pierre are no longer involved because of
other commitments, making the project leaderless.

I agree with you that the clarifications and corrections in the 2.1
draft are important for anyone implementing 2.0. I also think that QTI
2.* are probably the only IMS specifications that are actually
sufficently well defined to fully implement - QTI 2.1 should be the
flagship of IMS, not buried! (Of course, I am biased since I helped
write 2.0, and had some input in 2.1.)


Niall.



-----Original Message-----
From: ims-qti-bounces at lists.ucles.org.uk
[mailto:ims-qti-bounces at lists.ucles.org.uk] On Behalf Of Daniel Cassidy
Sent: 27 March 2009 16:12
To: ims-qti at lists.ucles.org.uk
Subject: [QTI] QTI 2.1 draft specification withdrawn

Hi List,

In the last few days the QTI 2.1 draft specification has been removed
from the IMS website, citing a lack of participation:

"The IMS QTIv2.1 draft specification has been removed from the IMS
website. Adequate feedback on the specification has not been received,
and therefore, the specification has been put back into the IMS project
group process for further work."

I am not quite sure whether to interpret this as a sincere attempt by
IMS to make the specification more relevant, or as a drive for
additional memberships and therefore additional revenue. It does seem to
put a spanner in the works for the existing QTI 2.1 implementations
(e.g. http://www.qtitools.org/), and is is particularly annoying given
the number of helpful clarifications in the 2.1 draft compared to 2.0.

I'm interested if anyone is willing to offer their thoughts on this
move?

Dan.

_______________________________________________
IMS-QTI mailing list
IMS-QTI at lists.ucles.org.uk
http://lists.ucles.org.uk/lists/listinfo/ims-qti