Re: Audience proposal [and LRMI, and http://schema.org/Audience]

[Greg Grossmeier]

<quote name="Dan Brickley" date="2012-06-27" time="21:03:53 +0200">
> > LRMI proposal contains intendedEndUserRole property with the same purpose,
> > contaning some text (which is also a soft enum).
>
> Looking at this again ... in terms of "what can we do now for
> integration, while still moving quickly towards including LRMI 1.0"?
>
> From LRMI, as you say, http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification
>
> * intendedEndUserRole schema.org/Text The individual or group for
> which the work in question was produced. Ex: “student” Ex: “teacher”
>
> Would a minimalistic improvement here be, to allow intendedEndUserRole
> to also (as an alternative) point to a thing of type
> http://schema.org/Audience ?

I think this might make sense, or, we could do as is suggested on the
wiki page:

Create a Thing->Intangible->Audience->EducationalAudience

That EducationalAudience could initially have a single added term on top
of what Thing provides called "educationalRole" (or similar). That
educationalRole would take a text value that specifies the specific role
that the group identified by EducationalAudience.

That would mean that anyone who has already begun marking up content
with LRMI would need to modify their markup from:

<span itemprop="intendedEndUserRole">Teacher</span>

to:

<span itemprop="audience" itemscope itemtype="http://schema.org/EducationalAudience">
<span itemprop="educationalRole">Teacher</span>
</span>


(that assumes we get rid of intendedEndUserRole in favor of the Audience
intangible)


If we did what you suggest ("allow intendedEndUserRole to also (as an
alternative) point to a thing of type http://schema.org/Audience") what
would it look like with a Audience intangible in the place of the
intendedEndUserRole value? I might be misunderstanding some aspect of
the syntax but it would seem it would be more nested than the example I
have above? Am I missing an easy way to model that?


Thanks!

Greg

--
Greg Grossmeier
Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier

[Dan Brickley]

On Thursday, 5 July 2012, Liddy Nevile wrote:

I wonder if it is useful to offer that when we made the 'audience' term for DCMI we found that we needed to know the audience but we also thought of a mediator i.e. if the target audience was 3 year olds but with the help of an adult who would print the page for the three year old to colour in with pencils, there was the child as the audience and the adult as the mediator.

Interesting. Are there any datasets or consuming apps yet that make this distinction?

Dan

[Stuart Sutton]

Yes, Dan, there are collections that include use of 'mediator'.  I would also add to Liddy's comment that when the 'audience' property [1] was added to the DCMI dcterms namespace in 2001 and 'mediator' [2] added as a subproperty of 'audience', a third property called 'beneficiary' was also entertained by DCMI Usage Board but not included in the namespace.  'Beneficiary' _was_ added to the DC-based GEM schema used by the Gateway to 21st Century Skills in the U.S. (see science browse results at [3] and scroll down the facets to 'mediator' and 'beneficiary' and expand).  Thus the broad 'audience' property can be refined to reflect both the nature of an intermediary for the resource and the nature of the ultimate beneficiary (some kind of learner)--e.g., a resource beneficiary of hearing-impaired students and a mediator of a librarian or a parent.

Stuart

[1]  http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-audience
[2]  http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-mediator
[3]  http://www.thegateway.org/search/apachesolr_search?filters=tid:139

--
Stuart A. Sutton,
CEO and Managing Director, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative
Associate Professor Emeritus, The Information School
University of Washington

[Zoe]

If memory serves, 'IntendedEndUserRole' had its origins in LOM.

I would be much more in favour of Greg's solution.

I note also that a resource like, for example, a guide to a video with both teachers' notes and a student worksheet cannot usefully be said to be either intended for students or for teachers - it has separate 'bits' for both user types. No reason not to have the field, but there are instances where using it may reduce meaning, not increase it.