AW: [QTI] Re: QTI 2.1 draft specification withdrawn

[Jens Schwendel]

Hi List,

Many thanks to Sue! We totally agree with you. We’ve done and still do a lot
of successfull QTI 2.1 implementation (http://onyx.bps-system.de ,
http://elques.bps-system.de , www.edu-sharing.net  ) in the last 2 years and
are very disappointed on this step backwards. Coming into public, this
withdrawal will cause not only concern but great damage for future
acceptance of e-learning standardisation work.
We don’t have much background knowledge from IMS but the given arguments are
not consistent for us. We applied for Testfest in September 2008 and were
refused because „the response to the call has been tremendous“. From the CC
group I just heard about plans to create QTI 2.1 application profiles for CC
v1.2. And if there was less feedback to IMS while implementing QTI2.1 it has
just been because we didn’t got into greater problems. 
QTI v2.1 is definitely much better than v1.2.x, where we are confronted with
a lot of half-compatible implementations with less functionality. 
If there is a way to discuss these things in the community and to
reinstate/finalize QTI2.1 we would be very interested to help as much as we
can.

Best regards,

--
Jens Schwendel
CEO

BPS Bildungsportal Sachsen GmbH
Bahnhofstraße 6
D - 09111 Chemnitz

Tel: ++ 49 (0) 371 6662739-0
Fax: ++ 49 (0) 371 6662739-9
Mobil: ++ 49 (0) 163 56 111 52
E-Mail : jens.schwendel at bps-system.de

________________________________________
Von: ims-qti-bounces at lists.ucles.org.uk
[mailto:ims-qti-bounces at lists.ucles.org.uk] Im Auftrag von Sue Milne
Gesendet: Montag, 30. März 2009 12:14
An: ims-qti at lists.ucles.org.uk
Betreff: [QTI] Re: QTI 2.1 draft specification withdrawn

Hi List,
 
The withdrawal of the QTI v2.1 draft specification is a cause of great
concern to those of us engaged in implementing the specification and to the
many advocates of standards in e-assessment.  QTI v2.1 presents a structure
which comes close to fulfilling the requirements of the Mathematics and
Science community, for whom the "fully endorsed" QTI v1.2.1 is seriously
inadequate.
 
I find the lack of communication between IMS and the teams that they know
are implementing the specification frankly astonishing; action as
fundamental as this should have been preceded by well-publicised warnings
about their intentions rather than being presented as a fait accompli.
 
Given that there is active development in progress on implementation, it
seems contrary of IMS to move the V2 specifications back into the draft
phase, and I hope they will reconsider their action and reinstate QTI v2.1.
 
Best regards
Sue

-- 
Dr Sue Milne

Mobile: +44(0)7780995748

Consultant
ELandWeb Ltd
Registered Address:
54 Grampian Way
Bearsden
Glasgow
G61 4RW
Company Number: SC312309