Re: Question about Educational content structure

Hi Bill,

I'm unsure of what the steering committee is supposed to do with
information like this. A web developer is seeking advice on how to express
metadata about web content in schema.org. Qualified people are helping him.
I'm not immediately seeing that the OP is having issues that could be
helped by things that are in scope for Publishing @ W3C.

In some sense this illustrates our fundamental problem: There are likely
millions of publications on the web already. What is missing from the web
platform? What types of publications can't happen on the web today? Is that
because of technical limitations, or is it because the web encourages
certain business models and discourages others? If stories like this
actually result in use cases or requirements, that's valuable. But without
a clearly-identified problem that could better be solved by something in
our wheelhouse, it's hard to know what to do here.

Regards,

Dave












On Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 12:27 PM Bill Kasdorf <kasdorf.bill@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Thought I'd forward this because it is an example of somebody who needs
> Web Publications. . . . And maybe the current Web is pretty darn close to
> accommodating complex publications like this anyhow. . . .
>
> There is more of this out there than we are aware of, I bet. And I bet WP
> is not even on his radar, though he's reaching out to schema.org to
> address an issue. There should be a standard way to accomplish what he (and
> plenty of other folks) need to accomplish.
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
> From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
> Date: Wed, Aug 14, 2019 at 10:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Question about Educational content structure
> To: <public-schemaorg@w3.org>
>
>
> The relationship you're after is probably not workExample, unless the
> video is a representation of the same intellectual content as the textbook
> but in a different medium.
>
> If you consider the test and video to be part of the content of the
> textbook, use hasPart. We're not paper-bound anymore so it's OK for videos
> to be parts of books.
> { ...
>   "@type": "TextBook",
>   "hasPart" : {
>     "@type": "Chapter",
>     "hasPart": [
>        { "@type": "Video" },
>        {
>         "@type": "CreativeWork",
>         "learningResourceType": "Assessment"
>        }
>     ]
>   }
> }
>
> If the Video and assessment are not parts of the textbook then (as far as
> schema.org is concerned) they're just other stand-alone but linked
> resources.
>
> A couple of things you might be interested in are:
>
> - K12OCX <https://k12ocx.github.io/k12ocx-specs/>, a spec for marking up
> complex learning content such as courses (textbooks are similar)
>
> - some ongoing efforts in LRMI <https://www.dublincore.org/about/lrmi/>
> to define a concept scheme for learning resource types
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pTZd1AQMdh52otziC_s_-iE3JZOPHSVOP_6D7Bk247I/edit#heading=h.dbbp5570samf>
> (sorry, you'll have to trawl the DC-LRMI Task Group mail archive
> <https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?A0=DC-LRMI> for discussions
> about that and why we avoid terms like 'video' and 'text')
>
> Phil (convenor of DCMI Learning Resource Metadata Initiative task group)
> On 14/08/2019 11:06, Ghaulser Rigoti wrote:
>
> I have a web site for educational content. Since we use Book type in the
> home page and chapter in the pages, I would like to know the best way to
> descrive the links of the page. Like: I have in the chapter page a link to
> another webpage with exercises, another link to a youtube video, another
> link to a podcast... all of those resources are in external sites. So, from
> my page, how do I have to do the relation ship?
>
> The json-ld for the pages are
> {
>   .
>   .
>   .
>   "workExample":  [
>     {
>       "@type": "CreativeWork",
>       "url": "www.example.com/exercise",
>       "learningResourceType": "Test",
>     },
>     {
>       "@type": "CreativeWork",
>       "url": "www.example.com/video <http://www..example.com/video>",
>       "learningResourceType": "Video"
>     },
>   ]
>   .
>   .
>   .
> }
>
> Is it correct to do it in this way? Any Suggestion?
>
> Regards
>
> --
>
> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
> CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for
> innovation in education technology.
> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance learning;
> information systems for education.
>
> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in
> England number OC399090
> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,
> number SC569282.
>
>
> --
> *Bill Kasdorf*
> *Principal, Kasdorf & Associates, LLC*
>
> *Founding Partner, Publishing Technology Partners
> <https://pubtechpartners.com/>*
> kasdorf.bill@gmail.com
> +1 734-904-6252
>
> ISNI: http://isni.org/isni/0000000116490786
> ORCiD: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786
> <https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7002-4786?lang=en>
>
>
>
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=icon> Virus-free.
> www.avast.com
> <https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail&utm_term=link>
> <#m_-8417496597179744269_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>