Did I mention we should meet online to talk things out immediately to avoid misunderstandings :) ?
Let's try to make some clear statements:
- Support for IMS QTI was never at disposal. If you had the idea that we are not following IMS QTI with the assessment specs than this ia a misunderstanding. Your estimation of IMS QTI supporting all the use cases specified in the Functional Spezifications is doubtful in my eyes, but it does not matter the least as assessment supports QTI specifications.
- The main concern was not that the specifications for IMS are not re-useable in other sectors as well (we use .LRN more outside universities than inside...). It is just that there is a cry for supporting packages that are not even there that scares me.
- In a previous posting I made clear, how assessment should be developed and how it shall in the long term interact with packages that are to be developed. If there is a flaw in this, please give an answer how to circumwent this, given budget and time constraints.
- Simple Sequencing (the reason this whole thread started) is not out at the moment and might not be for some time. Once an API is out, it sounds like a good idea to evaluate this and then implement (parts) of it in assessment (if someone is willing to put money in this).
- I'm not concerned about assessment relying on other packages, if these packages are reliable and out :).
- Question: Why does everyone say assessment has to follow the SS model, but noone talks the other way round: The SS package could as well make use of the functionality written within assessment and add other SS related things on top of it. After all, the sequencing specs (technical) for assessment are already out in the open, so anyone who has an interest in SS and wants to see standards supported and prevent a lot of money invested in sequencing twice, PLEASE take a look at the specs and give feedback. Or, even better, write up a specification for SS that is more readable than IMS specifications and tailored to the OpenACS realities.
- If I understood Matthias correctly he was suggesting that assessment uses the LORS for questions, sections and assessments. I don't see the value in doing this at the moment, but maybe I just do not understand the CP specifications and it's goals.
