Comments related to a rubric

[jgri...@siuccwd.com]

Hi guys,

I have noticed that ratings in the LR are often tied to a dimension of a rubric.  Was wondering if comments could also be tied to a rubric dimension.  We were thinking of publishing these as follows:

{

  "activity": {

    "actor": {

      "description": ["9","10"],

      "objectType": "educator"

    },

    "verb": {

      "action": "commented",

      "date": "2013-03-01",

      "comment": "Some comment goes here",

      "context": {

        "id": "http://some.isle.page/",

        "description": "ISLE detail page",

        "objectType": "OER"

      }

    },

    "related": [{

      "objectType": "RttT Tri-State Rubric",

      "id": "Some.Dot.Notation"

      "content": "The description of the particular dimension of the rubric."

    }],

    "object": {

      "id": "http://URL/to/resource/"

    }

  }

}

Would this work okay, or is there another way this should be done?

Jerome Grimmer

Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

"If you think you're too small to make a difference, you've never spent a night with a mosquito." -- An African Proverb

[Steve Midgley]

Hi Jerome,

Sorry for the slow reply - the main tricky bit with comments is to be sure you're not accidentally disclosing personally identifiable information (especially of minors) in public. 

We didn't define a comments paradata schema b/c we didn't want people to make that mistake. That said, if you can manage for PII, LR seems like a great system to interchange comments. Some things to get into place:

1) A terms of service agreement with your users that permits you to publish their comments in public. Twitter for example does this, and they seem to be doing ok! Amazon comments also are public, so it's very do-able. You might look at their comment ToS to see what they say about posts from 13-18 year olds (under 13 are in a different category altogether).

2) Encoding that ToS into the LR comment paradata you submit. So the license on the comment stays the same as when it was on your site. 

With all the said, I think your paradata format looks good for comments - so barring other input, you should consider it definitive. If you'd be willing to update our paradata spec doc, that would be great to have it in there (but with the PII caveats above clearly stated).

Anyway I hope this input is helpful. All feedback/thoughts (and comments!) welcome,

Steve

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
 
To post: learning-regis...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com
 
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/learning-registry-collaborate?hl=en?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Registry: Collaborate" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to learning-registry-co...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.