W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Submission of draft education terms (LRMI) for discussion

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2012 19:54:26 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFfrAFpUp2TP-vde7C=wQRwextge13fRX3XDX+wEDg9vJdd5Kg@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org>
-cc https://groups.google.com/group/lrmi  list (to avoid crossposting
permissions confusion; both lists are publicly archived at least)

On 28 February 2012 19:42, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to submit the Learning Resource Metadata Initiative's
> (LRMI) draft proposal for discussion.
>
> The latest version (0.7) is available at:
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Properties
> (or, in case you want to reference an archived version:
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Properties/Version_0.7 )
>
> For background on LRMI, please see: http://lrmi.net and
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI
>
> The use case for this proposal is to meet the needs of the educational
> community including publishers, teachers, students, and learners of all
> types. For specific use cases that the LRMI Technical Working Group[1]
> used to inform their process, please see:
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/UseCases
>
> A couple notes on the draft:
>
> 1) This draft will be expanded with more examples.
>
> 2) There is a growing list of promulgators of competency-related
> standards at http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Promulgators This list
> is intended to serve as a recommended list of promulgators to use when
> referencing competencies by URI and should be viewed as non-exclusive;
> there may be others we do not know of.

> All the best,
>
> Greg Grossmeier, on behalf of the LRMI Technical Working Group

Greg (& LRMI colleagues),

Many thanks for circulating these drafts. I encourage everyone here to
take a look if they're interested in schema.org extensions.
Educational metadata is one of the trickiest areas to scope, since it
tends to overlap with many other descriptive needs. We have markup for
describing videos and TV programs; books, scholarly articles, and
potentially soon Comics. It would be great if reviewers could bear
such interactions in mind as they take a look at the 0.7 spec. From
what I've seen it's simple and practical, but I'd love to see a bit of
discussion here to get a feel for how it fits in...

cheers,

Dan



>
> [1] http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Technical_Working_Group
>
>
> --
> Greg Grossmeier
> Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
> twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
Received on Tuesday, 28 February 2012 18:54:58 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 06:48:59 GMT