[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [dita] Proposal for 1.3 specification on lcQuestion
John, I'm certainly interested in any new L&T SC meetings. Cheers, E. On 1/24/12 7:26 AM, "john_hunt@us.ibm.com" <john_hunt@us.ibm.com> wrote: > Hi Eliot, Amber, JoAnn, and all - > > First, I appreciate the good active interest in these DITA Learning and > Training question interaction types. > > As you know, the sub-committee has officially been in hiatus since the release > of DITA 1.2. > > However, given the issues raised about the question interactions, and other > issues that may have come up in other uses of the L&T specialization, I'm glad > to facilitate a short series of focussed sub-committee meetings to discuss > these question interaction issues and open the floor to other issues as well. > > Please get back to me if you have interest in participating in these meetings, > and I'll look to arrange a mutually-good meeting time. > > Thanks. > > John > > > John P. Hunt > Senior Technical Content Architect > IBM Collaboration Solutions | User Experience: Design and Information > Excellence > john_hunt at us.ibm.com > Join our community > <https://greenhouse.lotus.com/wikis/home?lang=en_US#/wiki/W6696b8ac7465_4a5f_9 > 327_94f1a5d82132> | Team blog > <https://greenhouse.lotus.com/blogs/lotustechinfo/?lang=en_us> | Product > Wikis <http://www.lotus.com/ldd/wikis> > 550 King Street > Littleton, MA 01460 > USA > > > > > From: Eliot Kimber <ekimber@reallysi.com> > To: Amber Swope <amberswope@gmail.com>, JoAnn Hackos > <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com>, dita <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> > Date: 01/23/2012 01:46 PM > Subject: Re: [dita] Proposal for 1.3 specification on lcQuestion > Sent by: <dita@lists.oasis-open.org> > > > > > Amber, > > That's useful feedback. Could you perhaps provide some guidance on how to > interpret the QTI spec? I was having a hard time understanding how the > components of the QTI interaction items corresponded to the parts of a > question. For example, it wasn't clear if itemBody encompassed all the parts > of the actual question (that is, the prompt and the possible responses) or > just the possible responses. > > I'd be interested to see how you would change the current assessment markup > to better match the QTI model--we could always propose a new set of > assessment types for DITA 1.3. Unfortunately we couldn't specialize them > from the current interactionBase type, so we'd have to create a parallel > specialization hierarchy, but I think that's a minor issue relative to the > value of having a more accommodating content model. > > I also agree that specializing from a base other than <fig> would be > helpful. However, the current bodydiv/sectiondiv dichotomy (see my recent > post on this problem) would make that problematic without a new more-generic > div type. > > Cheers, > > E. > > On 1/20/12 11:02 AM, "Amber Swope" <amberswope@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi there, >> >> I have some experience with the L&T specializations and believe that the >> QTI-issue is a bit misunderstood. QTI has a totally different structure and >> the mapping from one element to its corresponding element in the other >> specification can be ambiguous. That said, QTI does accommodate multiple >> paragraph content, such as a stem and stimulus, for a single interaction, >> and unfortunately, the DITA L&T specialization does not. >> >> For example, if you are mapping <lcQuestion> to <prompt>, then the single >> paragraph limitation makes sense. However, QTI also supports additional >> elements, such as <p>, within the <itembody> element. This is how you can >> have multiple paragraph-level items in a single interaction. (and support >> most open questions...) >> >> DITA also has additional limitations to have content only contain one >> paragraph, including feedback information, which in QTI is structured with a >> <feedbackBlock> element that allows multiple paragraphs. >> >> Another point is that all the interactions are specialized from <fig>, which >> I believe was the only available element that met most of the requirements >> in DITA 1.1. If the L&T team were to create the specialization today, they >> would have been able to use the <*div> elements that are now available in >> DITA 1.2. >> >> As Eliot notes below, you must extend the specializations with another >> element that allows multiple paragraph-level elements. We did something >> similar for a client to accommodate all the locations in a question where >> you need to present multiple paragraph-level items. Given that QTI has a >> structure for handling the multiple paragraph constructs, I think that the >> requirement as it is currently presented to be a red herring. >> >> It seems to me that unless the DITA spec is updated to provide the necessary >> support, each implementation will have to meet these requirements and teams >> will do so in an inconsistent manner. How to address the situation is up to >> the committee. >> >> A >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dita@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org >> <mailto:dita@lists.oasis-open.org> ] On Behalf >> Of Eliot Kimber >> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2012 5:43 PM >> To: JoAnn Hackos; dita >> Subject: Re: [dita] Proposal for 1.3 specification on lcQuestion >> >> The issue, as I understand it, is that IMS-QTI, which the learning >> assessment markup tries to be consistent with as much as possible, does not >> allow multiple paragraphs within the question prompt. >> >> The way I've worked around this to date is to create a wrapper element, >> e.g., <question>, that contains whatever block-level elements you want and >> then any specialization of lcQuestionBase you want, e.g.: >> >> <!ENTITY % question.content >> "(%RSuiteMetadata;, >> (p | >> image | >> table | >> simpletable | >> fig | >> ol | >> ul | >> lq)*, >> (%lcTrueFalse; | >> %lcSingleSelect; | >> %lcOpenQuestion; >> )*, >> (%lcFeedback;)*, >> q_meta? >> ) >> "> >> >> Whether or not the concern with IMS-QTI is still valid I don't know. If it's >> not then I would agree with allowing blocks within lcQuestion as you >> suggest. >> >> Maybe John Hunt can provide more insight into the design? >> >> Cheers, >> >> E. >> >> On 1/19/12 5:27 PM, "JoAnn Hackos" <joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi All, >>> I would like to propose that we add to the list of elements available >>> in the L&T specialization of the assessment, namely lcQuestion. >>> >>> lcQuestion needs to contain <p>, various lists, programming and >>> software elements, etc. At present, lcQuestion primarily contains >>> highlighting elements. >>> >>> The relevant examples are below: >>> >>> Regards, >>> JoAnn >>> >>> JoAnn T. Hackos, PhD >>> President >>> Comtech Services Inc. >>> 710 Kipling Street, Suite 400 >>> Denver, CO 80215 >>> joann.hackos@comtech-serv.com >>> skype joannhackos >>> >>> >>> Here is an example from our book: >>> >>> We had to code the question as follows: >>> <lcQuestion>What is wrong with the following code? >>> <image href=²examplecode.jpg²></lcQuestion> >>> >>> We would have liked to have coded it: >>> <lcQuestion>What is wrong with the following code? >>> <codeblock><property> >>> <prophead> >>> <proptypehd>Character graphic</proptypehd> >>> <propvaluehd>Code Point</propvaluehd> >>> <propdeschd>Description</propdeschd> >>> </prophead> >>> <properties> >>> <proptype>A</proptype> >>> <propvalue>41</propvalue> >>> <propdesc>A capital</propdesc> >>> </properties> >>> <properties> >>> <proptype>a</proptype> >>> <propvalue>61</propvalue> >>> <propdesc>a small</propdesc> >>> </properties> >>> </property> >>> </codeblock></lcQuestion> >>> >>> As another example, some questions might need a scenario set up where >>> you want to have multiple paragraphs, which is also not allowed. For >>> example, >>> >>> Jane is taller than Bob. >>> Greg is shorter than Bob. >>> Bill is shorter than Jane, but taller than Bob. >>> Which of the following is true: >>> a) Greg is taller than Jane. >>> >>> b) Bill is taller than Greg. >>> >>> c) Bob is the shortest person mentioned. >>> >>> >>> You could not code this question to format as we¹ve shown. It would >>> have to currently be one paragraph. >>> >>> <lcQuestion> Jane is taller than Bob. Greg is shorter than Bob. Bill >>> is shorter than Jane, but taller than Bob. Which of the following is >>> true:</lcQuestion> >>> >>> But we¹d rather be able to code: >>> <lcQuestion><p> Jane is taller than Bob.</p> <p> Greg is shorter than >>> Bob. </p> <p>Bill is shorter than Jane, but taller than Bob. </p> >>> <p>Which of the following is true:<p></lcQuestion> >>> >>> >>> Or you might have a list within the question, like a logic problem. >>> There¹s no way to include any type of list. >>> For example, how would you code the following without a list element >>> in the question? >>> >>> Figure out the day of the week, first name, actor and cell phone for >>> each person using the clues given. Below are all categories and >>> options used in this puzzle. >>> 1. Kevin Bacon's cousin is not Conor. >>> >>> 2. The person who arrived on Friday doesn't have a cell phone with >>> Verizon. >>> >>> 3. The five individuals are the person who arrived on Wednesday, >> Conor, >>> the person who arrived on Friday, the person with the nTelos cell >>> phone and John Travolta's cousin. >>> >>> 4. Kassidy arrived sometime before Danielle. >>> >>> 5. The person with the nTelos cell phone is not Danielle. >>> >>> 6. Neither Bruce Willis's cousin nor the person with the nTelos cell >>> phone is Felix. >>> >>> 7. John Travolta's cousin arrived sometime before the person with the >>> Verizon cell phone. >>> >>> 8. The person with the Cingular cell phone is not Felix. >>> >>> 9. Kassidy arrived the day after Conor. >>> >>> 10. Robert De Niro's cousin is not Kassidy. >>> >>> 11. Conor has always used Nextel. >>> >>> 12. Of Felix and Danny DeVito's cousin, one has always used nTelos >>> and the other arrived on Monday. >>> >>> 13. The person who arrived on Tuesday isn't related to Robert De Niro. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> Eliot Kimber >> Senior Solutions Architect >> "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" >> Main: 512.554.9368 >> www.reallysi.com <www.reallysi.com> >> www.rsuitecms.com <www.rsuitecms.com> >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dita-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dita-help@lists.oasis-open.org >> >> -- Eliot Kimber Senior Solutions Architect "Bringing Strategy, Content, and Technology Together" Main: 512.554.9368 www.reallysi.com www.rsuitecms.com
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]