Re: [Proposal] schema:OnlineCourse

I don¹t think we had a strong objection to use of a subclass for the concept
of online course (and online course section), only a strong feeling that
there is a better option, i.e. just add a property to Course/CourseSection
objects to indicate that it is designed-for/offered ³online². It keeps
things simple and flexible.

Others can chime in here. My perspective is based on this: CEDS stakeholders
looked into this and found that most of the properties are the same as
traditional courses. Properties that we might think of as unique to an
online course, such as ³Course Interaction Mode² (1), could also apply to
blended learning courses that involve both online and off line
participation. So that group opted to go with a ³Virtual Indicator² (2) flag
rather than define a new entity.

-jim


(1) https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=8277
(2) https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=8167

From:  Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
Date:  Thursday, March 5, 2015 at 11:28 AM
To:  Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com>
Cc:  "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Subject:  Re: [Proposal] schema:OnlineCourse
Resent-From:  <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Resent-Date:  Thu, 05 Mar 2015 16:29:07 +0000

I agree that another term besides "Course" needs to be considered. (Oddly
enough, I attended a university that uses "course" the way other US
universities use "major", so I am sympathetic to the issues with the term.)

Putting aside Course vs Class vs some other term for now, what is the
objection to a subclass for online sessions?

- Vicki


Vicki Tardif Holland | Ontologist | vtardif@google.com
 

On Wed, Feb 25, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I used what seems to be the key points of consensus from comments posted to
> Vicki¹s doc, and the thread, to mark up suggested changes to the proposal..
> 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/12YWjLzZC8FiTiOwSAETRIEozeqZdn6O8a4fgqK4t5S
> s/edit?usp=sharing
> 
> -Jim Goodell 
>