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

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

From: Adam Wood <adam.michael.wood@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 22 May 2012 09:11:36 -0500
Message-ID: <CACABPBk=tqo5+1m_=pG9Y4evM4yCNoEQHT+pi0WoGrJ1JBPGzA@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Regarding "typicalAgeRange"
Examples in the description are:
"7-9" and "18-"

I assume "18-" means "older than 18," but that isn't exactly clear.
It seems (to me, anyway) that most age-range descriptions, for example
on packaging for both educational and game-related material, would use
"18+" or (for small children, let's say) "1 and under"

Then, I'm curious about how that might get parsed by a computer, and I
wonder if it wouldn't make sense to have something like "uu - 1" and
"18 - uu," or maybe perhaps " <= 1 "
 and " >= 18 "

Moreover, age range is only relevant for children's material (or, I
suppose, Seniors). But "adult learning material" doesn't exactly mean
"over 18." (There's no reason a 13 yr old couldn't go over to
Codecademy or Udemy and learn to program or basket weave or whatever).
So then I'm wondering if a blank "typicalAgeRange" should/would/could
MEAN anything such as "age range is not relevant" or if it cannot be
taken as significant of anything other than incomplete documentation.



(ALSO- BTW: I'm wondering if discussion about this LRMI stuff would be
preferred at LRMI Google Group or if this email list is an OK place
for it.)




On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> wrote:
> On 22 May 2012 05:22, Stéphane Corlosquet <scorlosquet@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, May 21, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> <quote name="Adam Wood" date="2012-05-21" time="16:01:09 -0500">
>>> > As a former teacher, this gets me excited.
>>> >
>>> > Also, this:
>>> > useRightsUrl
>>>
>>> Just FYI: That term is a part of LRMI 1.0 but will not be included with
>>> Schema.org. Thus, we hope implementers of LRMI will use all LRMI terms
>>> (as appropriate) but we know Schema.org will not have that term on the
>>> Schema.org website.
>>>
>>> A similar term was discussed previously for the rNews specification
>>> inclusion.
>>>
>>> See:
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/schemaorg-discussion/ON9nhXNYRdU/discussion
>>
>>
>> I'm curious to know where the schema.org core team draws the line to decide
>> what property gets merged in or not. So far with rnews:usageTerms,
>> rnews:copyrightNotice and lrmi:useRightsUrl, it seems to follow a
>> usage/copyright/licensing pattern. Is it because schema.org addresses this
>> need through another property maybe? or it's just too niche for schema.org?
>
> Schema.org is focused on search, and terms in schema.org are said to
> be (in some sense) 'understood' by search engines. Of course in
> reality this notion of 'understanding' is generally quite shallow; for
> example consider the medical/health terminology in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0057.html
>  ... the fact that we might have 'SurgicalProcedure' in the schema,
> should not give anyone the impression that schema.org-aware search
> services actually understand *surgery* (I wouldn't let a search engine
> operate on me). However with some of the vocab you mention there is a
> risk that "schema.org search engines understand X" might be
> misunderstood in just this way. We don't want schema.org's descriptive
> vocabulary to be misinterpreted by anyone as proscriptive, i.e. as
> something broadly like the http://www.robotstxt.org/ protocol  - as a
> way of communicating with search service providers.
>
> cheers,
>
> Dan
>
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2012 14:12:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 22 May 2012 14:12:37 GMT