[education-wg] endorse S. 1714 and ask for help with FOSS English reading and speech freemium

[Greg DeKoenigsberg]

Gah, stupid gmail reply-to-individual by default!

On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 2:27 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman at gmail.com> wrote:
> Greg, I agree with all your main points. SCORM is little more than a
> packaging format like .zip or .csv without any semantic assessment
> specification. It's only redeeming quality is that it references Dublin Core
> metadata.  IMS QTI, on the other hand, specifies assessments, but it's a
> bloated xml spec which isn't very human read-writable, so it could benefit
> from Dublin Core's adoption of RDF and microformats.
>
> If we want to establish a volunteer commons of assessments, I recommend
> re-casting the basics, some subset, of QTI in RDF or an xml-based
> microformat.
>
> Do you have a preference for whether editing RDF or an xml-style microformat
> is easier for beginners?

I would guess xml-style, but either way, what's most important is
getting to a useful, complete, copiously documented, (ideally)
widely-used example that demonstrates, to a relative novice, how it
works.  "See the website!  OK, now see the source.  Want your own
module?  Do it more-or-less like this, and it'll take you about a
weekend to get the first one that's useful.  Oh, and when you're done,
click this button to upload it and share it with the whole world."

An important aside: I've got a very close friend who has written
content for reading remediation tools for many, many years, and I have
succeeded in getting her excited about this idea.  I don't think OSFA
is the right place for this discussion, but is there a place where
you're gathering people who are interested in working on your project?
 Should I just drive people to here:

http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal_talk:Assessment_content

???

--g