Re: Proposal: Use CEDS “Learning Resource Education Level" controlled vocabulary URIs for grade levels in LRMI/LR

[Phil Barker]

Hello Jim, I like the way that the Learning Registry list has been discussing its way towards shared vocabularies.

This proposal would be for use within an AlignmentObject, right? It might be useful if you also fixed on a standard term to use for educationalFramework, presumably something like "Common Education Data Standards v4" is sufficient.

So an example would be something along the lines of

Item
type: http://schema.org/CreativeWork
property
    url : http://example.org/learningResource
    name: Example
    educationalAlignment: Item 1
    ...

Item 1
type: http://schema.org/AlignmentObject
property
    alignmentType: educationLevel
    educationalFramework: Common Education Data Standards v4
    targetUrl: https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#06
    targetName: 06
    targetDescription: Sixth grade
  
[The targetName and targetDescription are there for the benefit of people who can't process the URL, you could argue that "sixth grade" should be the name, but that's not relevant here]

Is there any hope that CEDS might provide machine readable information on some URI?

Phil

On 24/01/2014 15:56, Jim Goodell wrote:

With the release of CEDS v4 set for next week I’d like to make a proposal for use of the CEDS data element “Learning Resource Education Level” option set as the controlled vocabulary for LRMI and Learning Registry tagging U.S. grade levels.  CEDS has matured to a P20W standard, so the element includes early learning and postsecondary levels as well as K12 grade levels.

 

The CEDS website ceds.ed.gov has a human readable web page for each data element.  My proposal is to use the fragment identifier (#) with the unique code representing the grade-level in the option set.  This will provide a unique machine readable term (URI) for each grade level …and by using the (#) it could also link to the applicable table row on the human-readable page.

 

E.g.

CEDS uniquely defines “Ninth grade” in the option set for Learning Resource Education Level. The URI is: https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#09 .

 

Learning Resource Education Level (CEDS v4)

Definition

The education level, grade level or primary instructional level at which a Learning Resource is intended.

Option Set (with proposed URIs)

Description	Code	URI
Infant/toddler	IT	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#IT
Preschool	PR	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#PR
Prekindergarten	PK	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#PK
Transitional Kindergarten	TK	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#TK
Kindergarten	KG	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#KG
First grade	01	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#01
Second grade	02	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#02
Third grade	03	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#03
Fourth grade	04	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#04
Fifth grade	05	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#05
Sixth grade	06	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#06
Seventh grade	07	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#07
Eighth grade	08	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#08
Ninth grade	09	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#09
Tenth grade	10	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#10
Eleventh grade	11	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#11
Twelfth grade	12	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#12
Grade 13	13	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#13
Associates degree	AS	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#AS
Bachelor's degree	BA	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#BA
Post-baccalaureate certificate	PB	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#PB
Master's degree	MD	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#MD
Post-master's certificate	PM	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#PM
Doctoral degree	DO	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#DO
Post-doctoral certificate	PD	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#PD
Adult Education	AE	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#AE
Professional or technical credential	PR	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#PR
Other	OT	https://ceds.ed.gov/CEDSElementDetails.aspx?TermId=6212#OT

 

 

 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Resource Metadata Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lrmi+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
<http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/>

---

Sunday Times Scottish University of the Year 2011-2013
Top in the UK for student experience
Fourth university in the UK and top in Scotland (National Student Survey 2012)

We invite research leaders and ambitious early career researchers to join us in leading and driving research in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders for further information and how to apply.

Heriot-Watt University is a Scottish charity registered under charity number SC000278.

[Joshua Marks]

Hear hear, and it’s about time!

 

This is a great start at building common vocabularies for the LRMI properties. For US PK-Profession PD, this a very useful grade level framework. I agree with its use for educationalALignment as Phil illustrates.   I also agree a URI would be useful.

 

Now onto the same thing for the CommonCore skills (with state variances), reading levels, subjects, topics, resource types, etc. How do we propose and gain adoption for useful shared vocabularies like this? I have suggested for some time that using LR Nodes as filters that enforce specific metadata content policies (Such as acceptable vocabularies and required elements) is the best way to drive use and adoption. It also expresses the underlying conception of the Learning Registry’s “Network Communities” content distribution model. If the largest consumers agree on these content policies, from network communities, define the required vocabularies and enforce those practices via node filters, all who want to send content to them will comply.

 

Without this, we are all left with the challenge described by Jerome Grimmer at Sothern Illinois, and their effort to build ETL tools and logic, and publish and consume multiple divergent vocabularies and taxonomies. An inexact science at best.

 

Joshua Marks

Chief Technical Advisor (CTA)

Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community

jma...@curriki.org

jma...@pcgus.com

www.curriki.org

 

I welcome you to become a member of the Curriki community, to follow us on Twitter and to say hello on our blog, Facebook and LinkedIn communities.

--

--
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.

[Regan, Damon]

Greetings All,

I am very interested in this thread and especially the concept Joshua proposes.  How might we begin prototyping such ideas to make use of and encourage machine readable URIs for these important reference points?

Best Regards,

Damon

--

Damon Regan
Advanced Distributed Learning Initiative
407-208-5056 office

[Steve Midgley]

I also like more descriptive URLs, but I'll take what we can get!

It seems like we need a way to post recommend vocabularies to solve specific problems? Would submitting our requests to LRMI and getting them to annotate that website with vocabularies as they are developed make sense? In this case we'd post the original URL from Jim and the schema example from Phil to document that preferred use?

Is that the best place for it? We can easily add pages (and grant anyone access who wants it) to post this information on the learningregistry.org CMS site if that's preferable? It seems like a human readable documentation of controlled vocabs would be a good start?

Thoughts?

Steve

On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 9:18 AM, Paul Libbrecht <plibb...@curriki.org> wrote:

My proposal here would be to use ontologies…

We have attempted that in "GeoSkills": http://i2geo.net/About/GeoSkills

For the things originally discussed in this thread, GeoSkills has 

- educational level

- educational pathway (a series of level, e.g. primary school)

- educational region

We've encoded quite some levels in Europe, where it is heavily scattered.

I tend to find the URIs in GeoSkills slightly more readable than URLs containing such as TermId=6212#06.

paul

To unsubscribe:learning-registry-collabo...@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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Resource Metadata Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lrmi+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[Phil Barker]

Hello Paul, are you suggesting the GeoSkills URLs be used for US PK12+ levels instead of the CEDS URLs, that they be used to reference European educational levels not covered by CEDS, or that some service adopt an ontologies approach similar to GeoSkills?

Phil

On 27/01/14 17:18, Paul Libbrecht wrote:

My proposal here would be to use ontologies…

We have attempted that in "GeoSkills": http://i2geo.net/About/GeoSkills

For the things originally discussed in this thread, GeoSkills has 

- educational level

- educational pathway (a series of level, e.g. primary school)

- educational region

We've encoded quite some levels in Europe, where it is heavily scattered.

I tend to find the URIs in GeoSkills slightly more readable than URLs containing such as TermId=6212#06.

paul

Le 26 janv. 2014 à 23:16, Joshua Marks <jma...@curriki.org> a écrit :

To unsubscribe:learning-registry-collabo...@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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Resource Metadata Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lrmi+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Resource Metadata Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lrmi+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
work: http://people.pjjk.net/phil
twitter: https://twitter.com/#!/philbarker

Ubuntu: not so much an operating system as a learning opportunity.
http://xkcd.com/456/

[Phil Barker]

Hello all. Apologies for the delay in replying to this, but if I have learnt one thing about vocabulary management for metadata it is not to rush into volunteering to do it. Which is to say, after suitable thought, yes: let's do something to improve the knowledge base about what vocabularies could be recommended for specific scenarios, based on existing usage. My preference would be to use the LRMI site, I think that is the natural place where people would expect to find such information (you see, I'm hoping it will be used more widely than the Learning Registry, though use there is very significant). I'll try that first, and if it proves difficult I'll look into using the learning reg CMS (thanks for that offer, Steve).

One caveat: I am cautious about where to pitch the balance along the continuum of universal mandatory vocabularies through to complete free-for-all. I note Steve's phrase "recommend vocabularies to solve specific problems" which seems like a sensible point to aim for. I think the starting point, what we can do now, is recording existing practice (after some consideration of whether it is good practice). I hope it's not too big a step to get from there to recommended practice.

Send examples via this list, and I'll record who is using what; discuss the examples here and we can work out what is good practice.

Phil

On 28/01/14 23:09, Steve Midgley wrote:

I also like more descriptive URLs, but I'll take what we can get!

It seems like we need a way to post recommend vocabularies to solve specific problems? Would submitting our requests to LRMI and getting them to annotate that website with vocabularies as they are developed make sense? In this case we'd post the original URL from Jim and the schema example from Phil to document that preferred use?

Is that the best place for it? We can easily add pages (and grant anyone access who wants it) to post this information on the learningregistry.org CMS site if that's preferable? It seems like a human readable documentation of controlled vocabs would be a good start?

Thoughts?

Steve

[Stuart Sutton]

Phil, I'd think your aversion to rushing into vocabulary management is rooted in your knowledge that simply creating a list of vocabulary concepts is usually the easy part.  The long-haul and general usility of vocabularies requires more.  So, perhaps asking for some specific information about suggested vocabularies would be good.  For example, fairly targeted questions like:

• Who "owns" the vocabulary?
  
• Are there use restrictions for the vocabulary; and, if so, are they prescribed through conventional licensing (e.g., CC-BY etc.)?
  
• How is the vocabulary maintained, further developed, and by whom?
  
• What social assurances have been made that the vocabulary won't disappear tomorrow (or fall into disrepair)?

Many organizations have their own "home-grown" vocabularies for use in their own systems that are just fine for those "local" uses; but, not all organizations have any kind of "satisfactory" answers to such questions because they implicate uses that fall outside the organization's remit and responses implicate commitment of resources (technical, , human expertise, financial etc.).  Why not ask for responses to a small set of questions.  It is simple for someone suggesting a vocabulary to say things like "no longer actively maintained" or "no articulated maintenance/curation policy available" and "CC-By licensed". 

I am personally cautious in advising anyone to use vocabularies for open, public uses that don't have acceptable (or any) answers to these kind of questions--even if the vocabulary is excellent otherwise.  I don't think you have to be the U.S. Library of Congress to have articulated policies that respond to these kinds of questions. 

As far as I am concerned, Phil, having useful responses to questions like this helps me place vocabularies on your continuum--"universal mandatory vocabularies through to complete free-for-all".  CEDS can certainly respond easily to these kinds of questions.  Other vocabulary creators/maintainers can respond as well.  Some cannot respond usefully to any of these kinds of questions.

While not of the same ilk as the questions above, having a clear statement of available serializations of the vocabulary (e.g., SKOS, ) and made available (published as simple text, API to vocabulary management system etc. ) would be useful.

There are widely recognized schemas out there for describing assets such as vocabularies...golly, golly more metadata that can be globally shared!  Maybe a simple form-based "suggester" that uses one of these schemas?

​

Stuart

[Phil Barker]

Hello Stuart, and thank you, yes, that is line of reasoning behind my reluctance to commit to full-on vocabulary development and management. Strike me that the questions you pose would be a very good framework for any discussion around which vocabularies demonstrated good practice. I'll put some thought into that form-based suggester.

Phil

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Learning Resource Metadata Initiative" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to lrmi+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

-- 
<http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/>

[Stuart Sutton]

An addition question that occurs to me is whether a suggested vocabulary is of general utility or (quite legitimately) jurisdictional.  This could aid in slicing and dicing suggested vocabularies.  A classic jurisdictional vocabulary would be education level. 

Stuart

--

--
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.

--

Stuart A. Sutton, 

Managing Director, Dublin Core Metadata Initiative (DCMI)

   http://dublincore.org

Associate Professor Emeritus, University of Washington 

   Information School

   http://ischool.uw.edu/

Email: stuart...@gmail.com

Skype: sasutton

DCMI - a project of ASIS&T

   https://www.asis.org/

[Lorna M Campbell]

On 13 Feb 2014, at 13:06, Stuart Sutton wrote:

An addition question that occurs to me is whether a suggested vocabulary is of general utility or (quite legitimately) jurisdictional.  This could aid in slicing and dicing suggested vocabularies.  A classic jurisdictional vocabulary would be education level. 

Agreed.  More than a few of the vocabulary issues that have arisen in the past result from assumptions that vocabularies can be applied generally without reference to their original jurisdictions.   Educational level is the classic case but educational role is another example.  Vijendra's "student" concept map is a good example of a vocabulary that includes both general and jurisdictional terms. 

Cheers

Lorna

-- Lorna M Campbell --

Assistant Director, Cetis

Web: www.cetis.ac.uk

Blog: lornamcampbell.wordpress.com

Mail: lorna.m....@icloud.com
Twitter: LornaMCampbell
Skype: lorna120768