[QTI] QTI 2.1 draft specification withdrawn

[Daniel Cassidy]

Hi Niall,

2009/3/27 Niall Barr <n.barr at admin.gla.ac.uk>:
> I think that both Steve and Pierre are no longer involved because of
> other commitments, making the project leaderless.

I was a bit concerned for the future of the spec when Steve and Pierre
ceased their involvement -- I didn't for a moment consider that IMS
would end public availability altogether.


> 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.)

>From what I’ve seen of the other specs I would have to agree here,
although I, too, am biased since QTI 2.x is the only one of particular
interest to me.

My main concern is that IMS may drop QTI or drag their feet over
further development. Given their copyright on the specification, I
don’t believe it will be possible for any third party to continue
development independently.

Fortunately the license terms do permit unlimited verbatim
redistribution of the standard, so anyone who still has a copy (such
as myself) will be able to share it. However there are some more
onerous terms. The license also tries to forbid any implementation
developed by parties that have not applied for a license -- and
perhaps IMS will refuse such requests in the future. It is difficult
for me to imagine that this is enforceable, but IANAL.

Dan.