Re: Question about Educational content structure

Okay, that's what I thought. The latter is the obstacle for folks like this
guy, of course. But maybe the PCG is the solution. I hope that works.

On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 11:33 AM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:

>
>
> On 15 Aug 2019, at 17:19, Bill Kasdorf <kasdorf.bill@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I completely agree and wasn't intending to confuse the issue. My
> point--which I thought was obvious but which I should have made
> explicitly--is that this guy is a candidate for implementing a true Web
> Publication. What he's got is not unlike where a lot of educational
> publishing is going, as well as corporate publishing and others. He's got a
> rich, complex publication that needs to live on the Web and is not a good
> candidate for EPUB. But I doubt that he is even aware that the WP work is
> in progress. So what he's got is a website that links to a bunch of stuff.
> If that's all that's needed for a Web Publication then we should probably
> hang up our shingle. But I think the aspects you cite, Ivan, would actually
> be really beneficial to a publication like this.
>
> Or have we given up the original goal of "an arbitrarily extensive,
> complex, and organized collection of resources on the web (web pages, CSS,
> fonts, images, media, scripts, etc.) that has an identity, that can be
> referenced and can be archived," which is what I have always thought our
> ultimate goal was?
>
>
> We have postponed, I would rather say, until we have a number or
> organizations that (a) have a clear business need and usage plans for this
> and (b) are represented on the WG to do the work… :-)
>
> Ivan
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 15, 2019 at 3:28 AM Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org> wrote:
>
>> We should be careful with the terms we use.
>>
>> - The issue/question below bears similarities with the *Publication
>> Manifest*, in the terminology we use today
>> - It has no direct relationship to what we used to call *Web Publication*,
>> which is the manifest *plus*  a number of requirements, constraints, and
>> possibilities when all this is running in 'just' a Web browser (or
>> equivalent) instead of the safe haven, on could say, of a packaged and
>> isolated package.
>>
>> Mixing these two notions is partially the problem we have created to
>> ourselves…
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Ivan
>>
>> On 14 Aug 2019, at 20:49, Bill Kasdorf <kasdorf.bill@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Agreed. My point was just that this is an example of a publication that
>> would benefit from being a WP instead of being a scattered collection of
>> individual resources. It's currently not a "thing" on the web, it's a bunch
>> of things. But it probably doesn't want to be an EPUB. It's a web
>> publication, lowercase, right now. The "things" are related but he's
>> struggling to establish the relationships. That's what a Web Publication
>> should enable, in a standard way.
>>
>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 1:15 PM Dave Cramer <dauwhe@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Bill,
>>>
>>> I'm unsure of what the steering committee is supposed to do with
>>> information like this. A web developer is seeking advice on how to express
>>> metadata about web content in schema.org. Qualified people are helping
>>> him. I'm not immediately seeing that the OP is having issues that could be
>>> helped by things that are in scope for Publishing @ W3C.
>>>
>>> In some sense this illustrates our fundamental problem: There are likely
>>> millions of publications on the web already. What is missing from the web
>>> platform? What types of publications can't happen on the web today? Is that
>>> because of technical limitations, or is it because the web encourages
>>> certain business models and discourages others? If stories like this
>>> actually result in use cases or requirements, that's valuable. But without
>>> a clearly-identified problem that could better be solved by something in
>>> our wheelhouse, it's hard to know what to do here.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:27 PM Bill Kasdorf <kasdorf.bill@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thought I'd forward this because it is an example of somebody who needs
>>>> Web Publications. . . . And maybe the current Web is pretty darn close to
>>>> accommodating complex publications like this anyhow. . . .
>>>>
>>>> There is more of this out there than we are aware of, I bet. And I bet
>>>> WP is not even on his radar, though he's reaching out to schema.org to
>>>> address an issue. There should be a standard way to accomplish what he (and
>>>> plenty of other folks) need to accomplish.
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>> From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>>>> Date: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:34 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: Question about Educational content structure
>>>> To: <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The relationship you're after is probably not workExample, unless the
>>>> video is a representation of the same intellectual content as the textbook
>>>> but in a different medium.
>>>>
>>>> If you consider the test and video to be part of the content of the
>>>> textbook, use hasPart. We're not paper-bound anymore so it's OK for videos
>>>> to be parts of books.
>>>> { ...
>>>>   "@type": "TextBook",
>>>>   "hasPart" : {
>>>>     "@type": "Chapter",
>>>>     "hasPart": [
>>>>        { "@type": "Video" },
>>>>        {
>>>>         "@type": "CreativeWork",
>>>>         "learningResourceType": "Assessment"
>>>>        }
>>>>     ]
>>>>   }
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> If the Video and assessment are not parts of the textbook then (as far
>>>> as schema.org is concerned) they're just other stand-alone but linked
>>>> resources.
>>>>
>>>> A couple of things you might be interested in are:
>>>>
>>>> - K12OCX <https://k12ocx.github.io/k12ocx-specs/>, a spec for marking
>>>> up complex learning content such as courses (textbooks are similar)
>>>>
>>>> - some ongoing efforts in LRMI <https://www.dublincore.org/about/lrmi/>
>>>> to define a concept scheme for learning resource types
>>>> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pTZd1AQMdh52otziC_s_-iE3JZOPHSVOP_6D7Bk247I/edit#heading=h.dbbp5570samf>
>>>> (sorry, you'll have to trawl the DC-LRMI Task Group mail archive
>>>> <https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=DC-LRMI> for
>>>> discussions about that and why we avoid terms like 'video' and 'text')
>>>>
>>>> Phil (convenor of DCMI Learning Resource Metadata Initiative task group)
>>>> On 14/08/2019 11:06, Ghaulser Rigoti wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I have a web site for educational content. Since we use Book type in
>>>> the home page and chapter in the pages, I would like to know the best way
>>>> to descrive the links of the page. Like: I have in the chapter page a link
>>>> to another webpage with exercises, another link to a youtube video, another
>>>> link to a podcast... all of those resources are in external sites. So, from
>>>> my page, how do I have to do the relation ship?
>>>>
>>>> The json-ld for the pages are
>>>> {
>>>>   .
>>>>   .
>>>>   .
>>>>   "workExample":  [
>>>>     {
>>>>       "@type": "CreativeWork",
>>>>       "url": "www.example.com/exercise",
>>>>       "learningResourceType": "Test",
>>>>     },
>>>>     {
>>>>       "@type": "CreativeWork",
>>>>       "url": "www.example.com/video <http://www..example.com/video>",
>>>>       "learningResourceType": "Video"
>>>>     },
>>>>   ]
>>>>   .
>>>>   .
>>>>   .
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Is it correct to do it in this way? Any Suggestion?
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>>>> CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk/>: a cooperative consultancy for
>>>> innovation in education technology.
>>>> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk/>: technology to enhance
>>>> learning; information systems for education.
>>>>
>>>> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in
>>>> England number OC399090
>>>> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,
>>>> number SC569282.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> *Bill Kasdorf*
>>>> *Principal, Kasdorf & Associates, LLC*
>>>>
>>>> *Founding Partner, Publishing Technology Partners
>>>> <https://pubtechpartners.com/>*
>>>> kasdorf.bill@gmail.com
>>>> +1 734-904-6252
>>>>
>>>> ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786
>>>> ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786
>>>> <https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
>>>> www.avast.com
>>>> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> *Bill Kasdorf*
>> *Principal, Kasdorf & Associates, LLC*
>>
>> *Founding Partner, Publishing Technology Partners
>> <https://pubtechpartners.com/>*
>> kasdorf.bill@gmail.com
>> +1 734-904-6252
>>
>> ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786
>> ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786
>> <https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>
>>
>>
>>
>> ----
>> Ivan Herman, W3C
>> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
>> mobile: +31-641044153
>> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>>
>>
>
> --
> *Bill Kasdorf*
> *Principal, Kasdorf & Associates, LLC*
>
> *Founding Partner, Publishing Technology Partners
> <https://pubtechpartners.com/>*
> kasdorf.bill@gmail.com
> +1 734-904-6252
>
> ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786
> ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786
> <https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>
>
>
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704
>
>

-- 
*Bill Kasdorf*
*Principal, Kasdorf & Associates, LLC*

*Founding Partner, Publishing Technology Partners
<https://pubtechpartners.com/>*
kasdorf.bill@gmail.com
+1 734-904-6252

ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786
ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786
<https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>