I think we're starting to overload the numbering too much. Right now, the topic includes Certification level - LPIC-1 2 or 3 Topic number (almost unique across a given exam level but not quite) Objective within topic
So 1xx refers to LPIC-1, 2xx refers to LPIC-2 and 3xx refers to LPIC-3. In the current published objectives (not the proposed ones), Topics 101, 102, 103, 104 and 110 are for Exam 1 of LPIC-1 and Topics 105, 106, 108, 109, 111, 112, 113 and 114 are for exam 2 of LPIC-1. For LPIC-2 there are two topic 214's, one on troubleshooting for Exam 1 and one on network troubleshooting for exam 2. Apart from the duplication of topic 214, it hasn't been too hard to map topics to exams. One other possibility for topic numbering would be to pick a new topic number for new objectives or significantly changed objectives. So, instead of reusing topic 110 for Security where is used ot be for X, maybe consider assigning a topic number from the set of unused topic numbers (say topic 115). For the current exercise, which involves a substantial reswizzle of objectives, maybe just use topic 121, 122, 123, etc. instead of reusing any existing topic numbers. I still think the exam version needs to be exposed in the description, but I htink adding it explicitly into the topic numbering might be going too far. Ian Shields Ph.D. Linux Technologist, ISV & Developer Relations IBM Corp Research Triangle Park, NC [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 02/01/2008 03:11:12 PM: > No, I don't think I typo'ed anything. I was discussing in terms of > LPIC-2, since that is what I thought we started with. > > To me, it would seem that the test level should supersede the version > number, since I would think that it would be more important, and that I > would leave the minor version numbers out of it. Since it would be nice > to state the full version info somewhere, I suggested that you do that > in the title or header. I don't feel it needs to be re-stated in every > objective. > > So, for the LPIC-1 titles in question: > > Topic 1201: System Architecture > > * 1201.1 Determine and configure hardware settings > > Regards > > Paul King > > On Fri, 2008-02-01 at 14:54 -0500, G. Matthew Rice wrote: > > > > > > I was thinking what you have here initially, but now that I see it, I > > > think a more natural flow might be to have > > > > > > <level><version><2-digit objective>. > > > > > > Topic 2101: System Architecture > > > > > > * 2101.1 Determine and configure hardware settings > > > > > > I say it is "more natural" since it is more natural to say "level 2, > > > version 1" than to say the reverse. The fear is that it might interfere > > > with your existing system. > > > > They look pretty close but did you typo the 2101? This is for LPIC-1. An > > the versions will probably follow the sequence: 2.0, 2.1 (update),3.0 (full > > redo), 3.1, ... > > > > So with the full version in your model, wouldn't it be: > > > > Topic 12001: System Architecture > > > > * 12001.1 Determine and configure hardware settings > > > > Regards, > > -- > > g. matthew rice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> starnix care, toronto, ontario, ca > > phone: 647.722.5301 x242 gpg id: EF9AAD20 > > http://www.starnix.com professional linux services & products > > _______________________________________________ > > lpi-examdev mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev > > � > > _______________________________________________ > lpi-examdev mailing list > [email protected] > http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
_______________________________________________ lpi-examdev mailing list [email protected] http://list.lpi.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lpi-examdev
