Re: Course, a new dawn?

This approach looks good to me.

Using something like "hasCourseInstance" as the property name has been the
way we have gotten around the issue of having properties and types differ
only by upper/lower case.

- Vicki

Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com


On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 2:17 PM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@hw.ac.uk> wrote:

>
> Thanks Richard, I agree on both counts.
>
> Phil
>
>
> On 29/02/16 17:34, Richard Wallis wrote:
>
> +1
>
> A property with a name of courseInstance and a range of CourseInstace is a
> pattern that is not encouraged, yet is not unknown in Schema.  So, unless
> someone comes up with a killer alternative property name, it is probably
> acceptable.
>
> Might need a few extra course/instance specific properties, but as long as
> they don’t blur the simple entity & relationship we have here I give this a
> +1
>
> ~Richard.
>
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
> Linkedin:  <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>
> http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> Twitter: @rjw
>
> On 29 February 2016 at 17:12, Phil Barker <phil.barker@hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> There is a mock up of Vicki's proposal (as I understand it) at
>> http://course.schema-course-extend-vthprop.appspot.com/Course
>> http://course.schema-course-extend-vthprop.appspot.com/CourseInstance
>>
>> If you scroll right down to the bottom there are a couple of examples as
>> Google testing tool output (more or less human readable) and RDFa.
>>
>> Are we happy to proceed with this as a general approach?
>>
>> Phil
>>
>>
>> On 25/02/2016 18:23, Vicki Tardif Holland wrote:
>>
>> I am concerned that in the name of simplicity, we are losing the ability
>> to understand the various things a Course may be:
>>
>> 1. The abstract notion (e.g. "HNC Accounting").
>> 2. A specific session of the Course (e.g. HNC Accounting taught at St
>> Brycedale Campus Kirkcaldy starting 2016-08-29).
>> 3. An offer to sell access to a Course. In the online world, this is
>> usually a specific session.
>>
>> As the examples are written, I cannot tell the difference between
>> definitions 1) and 2), particularly because the first example gives dates.
>>
>> I think we need to move back to a model where there is:
>>
>> 1. Course which is a subtype of CreativeWork
>> 2. CourseOffering (or CourseSession if Offering is too close to Offer)
>>  which is a subtype of Event
>> 3. Use the "offers" property on CreativeWork and Event to allow someone
>> to specify an Offer to sell access to a Course or CourseSession as
>> appropriate.
>>
>> - Vicki
>>
>> Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist |  <vtardif@google.com>
>> vtardif@google.com
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 12:47 PM, Phil Barker < <phil.barker@hw.ac.uk>
>> phil.barker@hw.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Well, that got complicated & confusing.
>>>
>>> Richard and I had a chat this afternoon, he suggested we try something
>>> different. Briefly, it is to try a new starting point (and I hope I have
>>> interpreted correctly):
>>>
>>> Do not have separate types for Course and CourseOffering.
>>>
>>> Define Course as a subtype of both Creative Work and Event, which can be
>>> used for both the abstract description and the concrete instances.
>>>
>>> Define a coursePresentation property of Course to relate the concrete
>>> instances to the abstract description when necessary. (I guess and inverse
>>> property might useful).
>>>
>>> When describing a concrete instance of a course, declare it to be both a
>>> Course and an Offer. This allows the use of price, offeredBy, ApplyAction
>>> and so on.
>>>
>>> There is an mock-up of this at
>>> <http://course.schema-course-extend-rjwprop.appspot.com/Course>
>>> http://course.schema-course-extend-rjwprop.appspot.com/Course If you
>>> scroll right down to the bottom there are a couple of examples as Google
>>> testing tool output (more or less human readable) and RDFa.
>>>
>>> Any comments on this as a general approach? Does it make enough of a
>>> distinction between a Course and its Sections/Presentations/Offerings for
>>> it to be clear to people who care about such a distinction?
>>>
>>> Don't worry too much about details of the properties that are currently
>>> in the mock-up, that could lead more rabbit holes prematurely.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> --
>>> --
>>> Phil Barker           @philbarker
>>> LRMI, Cetis, ICBL      <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>
>>> http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>>> Heriot-Watt University
>>>
>>> Ubuntu: http://xkcd.com/456/
>>>   not so much an operating system as a learning opportunity.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Phil Barker           @philbarker
>> LRMI, Cetis, ICBL     http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>>
>> Heriot-Watt University
>>
>> Workflow: http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/workflow/
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join
>> us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please
>> see <http://www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders>www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders
>> for further information and how to apply.
>>
>> Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity
>> number SC000278.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> Phil Barker           @philbarker
> LRMI, Cetis, ICBL     http://people.pjjk.net/phil
> Heriot-Watt University
>
> Ubuntu: http://xkcd.com/456/
>   not so much an operating system as a learning opportunity.
>
>