Re: [xml-dev] XML dictionary - second try

[Razvan MIHAIU <xml.dev.ro@gmail.com>]

Hmm…. I asked the wrong question. What I want to develop is an online 
testing system not a "questionnaire". Only now I realized that there are 
some subtle differences between an on-line testing system and a 
questionnaire:

1) for the online testing system you need to know the right answers for 
each question and flag the user when it makes mistakes. For 
"questionnaires" there is no "right" answer.
2) for online testing systems the order of the questions is completely 
irrelevant (in fact the order is random). For a questionnaire the 
selected questions may depend on the input data from the user. Example:

I. Do you love cars ? Yes / No
II. What kind of cars do you like ?

It is meaningless to ask the second question if the answer to the first 
question is "No".

Anyway, thanks a lot for your input. It is not hard to adapt your XML to 
incorporate the correct answer.

I have some observations regarding you XML file. What information is 
represented there ? I mean it is the information presented to the user, 
in order to make a choice, or is it the information fulfilled by a user 
and presented to an administrator ?

The first survey – with id "sec1" shows the user the choices he can make 
while the second survey (with id "sec2") there are no choices. For the 
question

"<Text>Do you currently use an XML Editor?</Text>"

There is only one answer: "True". The user is not asked to choose 
between "True" and "False". This is either the answer received from the 
user or it is a default value that must be shown to the user.


Regards,
Razvan M.

> I am attaching my schema and an example XML file that conforms to
> the schema.  The only element that isn't generic is the "XMLUsersGroup"
> element.
>
> Betty
>
>   
>> Would you mind sharing you XML schema ? I am not asking for the XSLT
>> thing because that is quite hard to do - I will do that myself.
>>
>> I am looking to see other points of view regarding this Q&A thing. Your
>> schema would provide an alternative point of view.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Razvan M.
>>
>>     
>>> Unless you have a requirement to be compliant with a standard then it
>>> probably would be easier to create a schema (whichever flavor suits your
>>> fancy) that meets your requirements would be easier than trying to
>>> adapt your simplified version with the Q&T specification.
>>>
>>> I have developed a very simple XML schema for my own purposes for
>>> developing questionaires and an XSLT to transform it to XForms.  This
>>> is a relatively simple process and is an easier endeavor than trying
>>> to use Q&T.  Like most complicated specifications commercial tools are
>>> being developed to support Q&T.
>>>
>>> Good luck!
>>>
>>> Betty
>>>
>>> On Tue, 13 Mar 2007, Razvan MIHAIU wrote:
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Michael Kay wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>>> This looks like what I need, but it is quite complicated... I was
>>>>>> expected something simpler.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>             
>>>>> Generic schemas are always more complicated than you expect. That's
>>>>> because
>>>>> your requirements are a subset of the requirements of the community
>>>>> as a
>>>>> whole, often quite a small subset. A published generic schema will
>>>>> tend to
>>>>> be the union of everyone's requirements.
>>>>>
>>>>>           
>>>>   In that case it might be better to develop my own "quick" version.
>>>> I will have to explain a small set of rules to the partner sites,
>>>> otherwise I need to explain this generic specification which is much
>>>> more complex.
>>>>
>>>>   I am thinking what is the best trade-off.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>> Razvan N.
>>>>
>>>>