OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

dita message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: RE: [dita] Proposal for 1.3 specification on lcQuestion

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.


-----Original Message-----
From: 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
   (p |
    image |
    table |
    simpletable |
    fig |
    ol |
    ul |
   (%lcTrueFalse; |
    %lcSingleSelect; |

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

Maybe John Hunt can provide more insight into the design?



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>&lt;property>
>    &lt;prophead>
>      &lt;proptypehd>Character graphic&lt;/proptypehd>
>      &lt;propvaluehd>Code Point&lt;/propvaluehd>
>      &lt;propdeschd>Description&lt;/propdeschd>
>    &lt;/prophead>
>    &lt;properties>
>       &lt;proptype>A&lt;/proptype>
>       &lt;propvalue>41&lt;/propvalue>
>       &lt;propdesc>A capital&lt;/propdesc>
>    &lt;/properties>
>    &lt;properties>
>       &lt;proptype>a&lt;/proptype>
>       &lt;propvalue>61&lt;/propvalue>
>       &lt;propdesc>a small&lt;/propdesc>
>    &lt;/properties>
> &lt;/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,
> 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

To unsubscribe, e-mail: dita-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dita-help@lists.oasis-open.org

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]