I presume you mean the thread:

  Urgent need for setting specifications (Long Post)

Susan.

That thread makes many valid points that are not unknown to
anyone that has a close involvement with the specifications.
For those who haven't read the thread I would informally
summarise it in a very oversimplified way as

"having data schema interoperability specifications
is a long way from having interoperability - we need to look closely
at conformance as well".

In the case of qti, as we have previously said, specification
development will be entering a quiescent phase now to allow space
for more widespread implementation experience.  We must expect
that development of future versions (2.0) will be much more
oriented towards the needs of conformance, suitably informed
by intermediate experience with this (1.2) version.

With 1.2 there were differences of opinion on how close to
go to the kind of concrete details needed to answer conformance
questions.  For example, when implementing qti there is
a need to implement navigation controls in some way (e.g.
from item to item).  Different ways of doing this reveal
subtly different ways to interpret the specification so that
any version around which testable conformance could be developed
would probably need to include these details.  Nevertheless,
there was a feeling that go to such a level
would be to tie down the functionality too much at
this point.  There is a trade off here - the closer you
go to implementation the better you can talk about conformance
but the less flexibility to change functionality.  All of
this ignores the problem of different organisations having
different ways to use the spec even when physical interoperability
has been established.

I think there is a feeling on the ground that people want standards
quickly but the reality is that though specifications may
be relatively quick to develop standards are not and you need
to know you have the specs right before working on the standards.

We need standards that permit conformance testing of implementations
but to have them set in concrete too soon would not be a good thing
in the long run.

I do think its worth is trying to get some real interoperability
demos going though.

andy


> Is everyone following the correspondence on IMS and VLEs etc at
>
> [log in to unmask]
>
> Regards,
>
> Sue Watts
> Susan Watts
> Teaching and Learning Support Adviser
> Computer-Assisted Assessment Evaluation and Survey Service
> Kingston University
> Learning Resource Centre
> Penrhyn Road
> Kingston
> KT1 2EE
>
> Telephone:0208 547 7873
> Fax:0208 547 7497

-- andy
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Heath, Sheffield Hallam University participating in Ctr for Educ
Tech Interoperability Stds    +44 (0)114 2885738   [log in to unmask]