Re: Issue #44 -- "applicable checkpoints"

Issue #44 re: "applicable checkpoints"

My response to some of Ian's comments (24 Nov 1999) regarding my memo 
"Issues: Part 3 - #44 and #45"

====
Issue #44 (the portion of the issues dealing with "applicable checkpoints: 
in the definition of conformance levels.)

Regarding my suggestion:
 
> Conformance Level "A": all applicable Priority 1 checkpoints are 
satisfied
> Conformance Level "Double-A": all applicable Priority 1 and 2 checkpoints
> are satisfied
> Conformance Level "Triple-A": all applicable Priority 1, 2, and 3
> checkpoints are satisfied
> 
> Note. Conformance levels are spelled out in text ("Double-A" instead of
> "AA") so they may be understood when rendered as speech.
> 
> Claims of conformance to this document must use one of the following two
> forms.
> 
> [etc., etc.]
> 
> {End of New}

Ian wrote:

"Would it be interesting to move the term "applicable" to the definition of 
"satisfy"? Or would that be too obscure in the Priority definition?"

EH (24 Nov):

I think that might be too obscure. Besides, it would contradict the current 
Form 1conformance provision that contrasts checkpoints that are "satisfied" 
with those that are "not applicable" ("A list of checkpoints that have been 
satisfied and which are considered not applicable.") So I recommending 
putting the word applicable in the definition of the conformance levels.
=============================
Eric G. Hansen, Ph.D.
Development Scientist
Educational Testing Service
ETS 12-R
Rosedale Road
Princeton, NJ 08541
(W) 609-734-5615
(Fax) 609-734-1090
E-mail: ehansen@ets.org

Received on Wednesday, 24 November 1999 18:42:39 UTC