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: Greg Grossmeier <greg@creativecommons.org>
Date: Wed, 23 May 2012 15:25:53 -0700
To: public-vocabs@w3.org
Cc: LRMI <lrmi@googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <20120523222553.GC21546@x200s>
Hello Adam,

Thanks for the feedback.

<quote name="Adam Wood" date="2012-05-22" time="09:11:36 -0500">
> 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"

If you look at LOM's Typical Age Range you'll see similar examples (eg:
"18-") We (the LRMI Technical Working Group) were hoping to minimize any
new variance with the already in use education standards in many ways
(build off what is already there and in use).

I think the best form would be something that aligns with standards that
are already in use, but, with that said, there is nothing stopping
people from using the "18+" or "1 and under" type values. What is
understood by the search engines will in the end matter (in this
context). In another context (eg: specialized search engines or systems)
the precision of "5-6" and "7-" will be useful.

> 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.

I think one shouldn't read into a lack of a metadata field in any
context (usually). But I agree with regarding the lack of meaning when
you get to 'adult' (for whatever definition of adult you want to use).
This team, I foresee, will be mostly useful when describing K-12 type
material.

> (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.)

I've cc'd that list now. Both lists is fine.

Thanks again for your input!

Greg

-- 
Greg Grossmeier
Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
Received on Wednesday, 23 May 2012 22:26:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 23 May 2012 22:26:24 GMT