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

Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org

From: Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 16:36:13 -0700
To: public-vocabs@w3.org, LRMI <lrmi@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <20120613233613.GA5491@x200s>
[I've added in the LRMI mailing list, for good measure.]

If you are interested we have some examples of marked up
content/resources at: 
  http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification/examples

If you have some other good examples that you want to try marking up,
please do. Or send them my way. I'll try to get to them as I can.

One thing to remember is that the use case for LRMI (as indicated in its
name) is the resource level (whatever that means) as opposed to the
course level. This let us avoid complexities of defining a taxonomy of a
course (define "course") within LRMI and instead left that with the
course publisher. But each bit of the course can be marked up with LRMI
(which is at a level that most learners, especially in the K12 arena,
want; they want something that supplements a topic they are learning in
class).

All the best,

Greg

<quote name="Peter Pinch" date="2012-06-13" time="18:13:07 +0000">
> I'm in — to the extent that OpenCourseWare fits anyone's model.
> 
> -----------
> Peter Pinch
> Production Manager, MIT OpenCourseWare
> pdpinch@mit.edu<mailto:pdpinch@mit.edu>
> http://ocw.mit.edu
> 
> 
> 
> From: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@yahoo.com<mailto:aaranged@yahoo.com>>
> Reply-To: Aaron Bradley <aaranged@yahoo.com<mailto:aaranged@yahoo.com>>
> Date: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 1:58 PM
> To: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org<mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>>, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org<mailto:greg@creativecommons.org>>, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org<mailto:danbri@danbri.org>>
> Cc: "public-vocabs@w3.org<mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>" <public-vocabs@w3.org<mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>>, Peter Pinch <pdpinch@mit.edu<mailto:pdpinch@mit.edu>>
> Subject: Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org
> 
> Couldn't agree more Martin.  While I haven't had time to address the LRMI proposal fully, I have been doing some course modeling that is not yet complete.
> 
> It would be useful to bring in some other course vendors - both free (e.g. http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm) and commercial (e.g. http://www.newsu.org/) to get their input.  I will reach out but would welcome input from anyone on this or the LRMI list that falls into this category.
> 
> ________________________________
> From: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org<mailto:martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>>
> To: Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org<mailto:greg@creativecommons.org>>; Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org<mailto:danbri@danbri.org>>
> Cc: public-vocabs@w3.org<mailto:public-vocabs@w3.org>; Peter Pinch <pdpinch@MIT.edu<mailto:pdpinch@MIT.edu>>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 10:55:06 PM
> Subject: Re: (most likely) Version 1.0 of LRMI specification - proposed for inclusion with Schema.org
> 
> Hi Greg, Dan:
> 
> What we should keep on our radar is checking that you can model commercial courses / training using both the LRMI and the GoodRelations extension of schema.org.
> 
> Martin
> 
> On May 24, 2012, at 12:36 AM, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
> 
> > Hi Peter,
> >
> > <quote name="Peter Pinch" date="2012-05-22" time="17:29:52 +0000">
> >> I'm excited to see this moving along as well. Two questions:
> >>
> >> 1. What's the possibility for considering the online course suggestions
> >> Aaron Bradley made? If it's too late to propose new properties (I.e.
> >> Credit), can we at least document as best practice the use of the Event
> >> type for describing start and end dates?
> >
> > It is true that defining a 'course' in the LRMI standard was out of
> > scope. However, as I believe Aaron stated, there is no reason why a
> > course could not be made up of distinct pieces (resources) that are
> > marked up with LRMI.
> >
> > But, it is true that there is no way to describe the course itself via
> > LRMI terms. I, honestly, haven't thought through the use of Event start
> > and end dates for that type of thing. That type of addition would be
> > useful for a certain kind of course (that is describable online) (ie:
> > those which are bound by a time and have regular meetings) but it
> > doesn't do much for a self-learner type course.
> >
> > These are good things to think about and I look forward to working with
> > the community to address them intelligently.
> >
> >> 2. Is anything happening with accessibility?
> >
> > As you may know, LRMI began with an eye towards accessibility but we
> > quickly dropped it as we did not have the expertise within our Technical
> > Working Group, and managing the process for learning resources was time
> > consuming enough :)
> >
> > However, there is work being done now by some in the accessibility
> > community to augment LRMI (or plain Schema.org) with ally information.
> > Be on the look out for an update on that as we know more.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Greg
> >
> > --
> > Greg Grossmeier
> > Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
> > twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------
> martin hepp
> e-business & web science research group
> universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen
> 
> e-mail:  hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org<mailto:hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
> phone:  +49-(0)89-6004-4217
> fax:    +49-(0)89-6004-4620
> www:    http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
>         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
> skype:  mfhepp
> twitter: mfhepp
> 
> Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
> =================================================================
> * Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

-- 
Greg Grossmeier
Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
Received on Wednesday, 13 June 2012 23:36:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 June 2012 23:36:58 GMT