Fwd: schema.org 1.0a revision: LRMI, Datasets, Audience, Technical Publishing vocabulary and more.

[Dan Brickley]

Excuse this brief note; I'll write more in a week. We've just
published a revision to schema.org including substantial new
vocabulary that improves

The new version is numbered 1.0a indicating that this is approaching a
full 1.0 release but that we still have a few additions to make before
we declare we're at a full 1.0.

The 1.0a additions are considered stable, but we will fix any bugs or
problems that implementors encounter during this 'soft release'.
Additions include the Datasets vocabulary, LRMI for
education/learning, technical publishing vocabulary, more vocabulary
for describing Audiences, and some supporting utility terms for
describing schema.org types, properties and their inter-relationships.

I won't attempt here to list everyone who contributed to these new
additions (it deserves a blog post), but thanks for all your hard work
and patience. There are plenty more additions still in the pipeline
and I look forward to following this announcement with work towards a
1.0b update. In the meantime please share any feedback, issues etc on
the WebSchemas and LRMI lists.

http://schema.org/docs/full.html as always has pointers to the full vocabulary.
For LRMI, http://schema.org/AlignmentObject is the main type,
alongside additions to http://schema.org/CreativeWork
For Datasets, we added http://schema.org/Dataset and some nearby types...

Dan

[Dan Brickley]

I spoke slightly too soon; we've had to revert to v0.99 temporarily.
So while we wait for that fix, let me stress that this is purely a
system/implementation issue and that the LRMI markup is fully accepted
and official at schema.org. --Dan

[Brandt Redd]

Despite the technical issues that's great news! Thanks for the great work on this and for keeping us informed.

 

-Brandt

--
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.

[d...@creativecommons.org]

Hi Dan,

The rollback aside - I'm very pleased to hear things are moving along! I can tell you that your email made some waves at Creative Commons, we're all very excited.

I actually see that schema.org is currently at 1.0a again, and includes AlignmentObject. Is that a temporary thing? We will want to write a blog post when it's live, but don't want to do that if it might get rolled back again, of course.

Thanks!
Dan

[Dan Brickley]

And we're back. Apologies for the hiccup!

[Steve Nordmark]

Wonderful news.  The vendors and educators who have been following LRMI will be very excited to hear about schema.org adoption.

I had trouble locating "useRightsURL" and "mediaType" - can you point me to them in the spec?

thanks,

Steve

[Joshua Marks]

Dan,

 

Indeed it is great to see the LRMI tags in the full Schema. The only one I can’t seem to find is “useRIghtsUrl” . Can you point that one out?

 

Joshua Marks

CTO

Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community

jma...@curriki.org

www.curriki.org

US 831-685-3511

 

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.

[Jim Klo]

I've got similar questions:

In comparing:

http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification

with 

http://schema.org/CreativeWork

I'm noticing a couple discrepancies possibly:

"about" property is listed in LRMI as "http://schema.org/Text" vs "http://schema.org/Thing" in Schema.org.

"useRightsUrl" property is listed in LRMI, missing in http://schema.org/CreativeWork

"mediaType" property says it's adequately expressed, but is missing or no longer in Schema.org.

Can anyone enlighten me to what has happened here?

Thanks,

Jim

[Phil Barker]

On 10/04/13 23:30, Jim Klo wrote:

I've got similar questions:

In comparing:

http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification

with�

http://schema.org/CreativeWork

I'm noticing a couple discrepancies possibly:

"about" property is listed in LRMI as "http://schema.org/Text" vs "http://schema.org/Thing" in Schema.org.

That looks like a mistake in the LRMI documentation. The intent was to use the about property that was already in schema.org/CreativeWork, which has expected type Thing (I'm pretty sure it always has).

BTW, It's pretty common in practice to see text where another schema type is expected, even most of the examples on the schema.org website use a text string where a person is expected, e.g. for author. See conformance at http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html� So any LRMI data with text for about will be just as conformant to schema.org as one would expect.

"useRightsUrl" property is listed in LRMI, missing in http://schema.org/CreativeWork

Not sure. Perhaps we need to ask (again) on the public-vocabs lists

"mediaType" property says it's adequately expressed, but is missing or no longer in Schema.org.

There was a discussion about this last month https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/lrmi/HVBcJFwX_FQ� Not sure it resolved anything.

Hope this helps, Phil.

Can anyone enlighten me to what has happened here?

Thanks,

Jim

-- 
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/

[Dan Brickley]

On 11 April 2013 16:56, Phil Barker <phil....@hw.ac.uk> wrote:
> On 10/04/13 23:30, Jim Klo wrote:
>
> I've got similar questions:
>
> In comparing:
>
> http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification
>
> with
>

> http://schema.org/CreativeWork
>
>
> I'm noticing a couple discrepancies possibly:
>
> "about" property is listed in LRMI as "http://schema.org/Text" vs
> "http://schema.org/Thing" in Schema.org.
>
>
> That looks like a mistake in the LRMI documentation. The intent was to use
> the about property that was already in schema.org/CreativeWork, which has
> expected type Thing (I'm pretty sure it always has).

Yes, in general 'about' can point to things, or strings representing
strings; it's roughly the same as 'subject' in Dublin Core.

> BTW, It's pretty common in practice to see text where another schema type is
> expected, even most of the examples on the schema.org website use a text
> string where a person is expected, e.g. for author. See conformance at

> http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html So any LRMI data with text for about

> will be just as conformant to schema.org as one would expect.

Yes

> "useRightsUrl" property is listed in LRMI, missing in
> http://schema.org/CreativeWork
>
>
> Not sure. Perhaps we need to ask (again) on the public-vocabs lists

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0089.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0093.html
... this is one of those areas where schema.org is extra careful about
introducing new vocabulary that might cause confusion. Publishers are
free to include whatever markup they like in their pages. There are a
variety of related properties already in circulation (from html
itself, dublin core, etc.). It should be harmless to include
'useRightsUrl', even if the search engines don't list it as a property
they understand.

> "mediaType" property says it's adequately expressed, but is missing or no
> longer in Schema.org.
>
> There was a discussion about this last month

> https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/lrmi/HVBcJFwX_FQ Not
> sure it resolved anything.

I'll look into this...

Dan

> Hope this helps, Phil.
>
>
> Can anyone enlighten me to what has happened here?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jim
>
>
> --
> 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/
>

[Dave Gladney]

Hi Dan,

AEP is working closely with a group that's building an LRMI tagger application for inBloom (https://inbloom.org). Most of their development up to this point has been built around the LRMI 1.0 spec, which means their work and a considerable number of resources that have been tagged through their application over the past few months will be impacted by the discrepancies highlighted here by Jim Klo. We are trying to figure out how best to triangulate between LRMI 1.0, LRMI 1.1, and Schema.org 1.0a with minimal impact on the work that's already been done and the resources that have already been tagged. 

Based on your response, it seems we're safe to continue to output text for the "about" property. In fact, to be as conformant to Schema.org as possible, the tagger maps this to the description text field of the "Thing" object. Would this be considered a best practice approach?

Along the same lines, the inBloom tagger will map useRightsURL to the URL property of the Thing object. (I realize that Schema.org will not recognize this data, but it is important to the work being done by inBloom and other platform developers as well as content publishers who will utilize LRMI 1.1).

Finally, it seems there is no definitive answer to the "mediaType" question yet. The inBloom tagger still collects and exports data for this property, so along the lines of useRightsURL, I imagine there's no harm in doing so. The plan here would be to map to the description text field of mediaObject. Would this be the most Schema.org-conformant approach until a more decisive resolution is reached around a "mediaType" or similar property?

Thanks,

-Dave

[Joshua Marks]

Dan,

 

From the perspective of the Open Educational Resources (OER) community the issue of useRightsURL is foundationally critical. As an OER repository, Curriki.org and others like us (CNX.org, P2PU, OER Commons, CK12, Khan Academy, PhET, etc.) want to make the release under Creative Commons as similar grant deeds as correct and automated as possible. Pointing to the legal license for use as part of the content metadata is extremely important for many use cases and often dispositive as to whether a learning resource can or cannot be used in a certain context.

 

In general, providing an easy and standardized mechanism to declare the level and types of acceptable use of publically accessible content (web pages) would seem a very important component of the Schema model. Is it not?

 

While I have you, this mediaType issue is challenging for Curriki as well. Any guidance on how best to use Schema to describe and classify the myriad  of media assets that might be tagged as learning resources is greatly appreciated.  

  

 

Joshua Marks

CTO

Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community

jma...@curriki.org

www.curriki.org

US 831-685-3511

 

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.

 

From: lr...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lr...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Dave Gladney
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 7:10 AM
To: lr...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: schema.org 1.0a revision: LRMI, Datasets, Audience, Technical Publishing vocabulary and more.

 

Hi Dan,

[Tim Farquer]

As a learning resource curator/consumer, I echo Joshua's sentiment..."the issue of useRightsURL is foundationally critical".

Tim

[Dan Brickley]

On 18 April 2013 16:51, Tim Farquer <timfa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As a learning resource curator/consumer, I echo Joshua's sentiment..."the
> issue of useRightsURL is foundationally critical".

Message received loud and clear. I'd say go ahead and deploy using it
(this is the approach IPTC rNews took). I will see what we can do
about making it more official at schema.org. Also investigating the
media type issue...

Dan

[Phil Barker]

Hello all, I'm not sure if anyone answered the first of Dave's
questions, i.e.

> In fact, to be as conformant to Schema.org as possible, the tagger
> maps this to the description text field of the "Thing" object. Would
> this be considered a best practice approach?

For what it's worth, my answer would be that sounds fine, though I would
have used the "name" field. I guess it depends on what exactly you are
working with, but if your example is that the resource is about physics,
then I would say physics is the name of the subject, not a description
of it. But your examples might point in another direction.

If you're interested enough to have read this far, then you might be
interested in this:
http://www.w3.org/community/opened/
> Open Linked Education Community Group
> Pearson initiates this community group proposal with the W3C with the
> goal of facilitating and creating a curated subset of Wikipedia data
> that can be used for tagging educational content.
>
> Goals:
> � Build a SUBJECT database from a curated subset of Wikipedia
> (DBpedia) that can be used by institutions, instructors, and students,
> to tag educational resources.
>
> � Create a website presence similar to OpenCorporates
> (http://opencorporates.com/) with API�s for reconciling with Google
> Refine. Provide tutorials on how to use Google Refine to access the
> datasets. Make access to the data easy.
>
> � Build relations and bridges to at least 3 existing open linked datasets.
>
> � Provide SPARQL endpoints for data
>
> � Prepare and built out to 5-Star linked data (RDF/XML/JSON/schema.org)

--
<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.

[sai bal reddy cheruku]

HI,I am owning an educational website for Java tutorials, what Schema can I use for it? 

[Phil Barker]

Hello,
 The "Specification" page on the LRMI website <http://www.lrmi.net/the-specification> lists the properties that the Learning Resource Metadata Initiative added to to schema.org in order to describe educational resources. Remember that many useful properties were already in schema, some of which are listed at the bottom of that page.  If you have existing web pages that adequately describe your resources then you could try to find the schema properties that best describe the information you provide. If you are starting from new, then think about what you users would want to know (looking at schema should give some hints as it was developed with this in mind) and try to express it in a clean way that can be described with schema.org markup.

I hope this helps, it's difficult to be more specific without seeing or knowing more about the site.

Phil

On 01/02/2014 18:25, sai bal reddy cheruku wrote:

HI,I am owning an educational website for Java tutorials, what Schema can I use for it? 

--

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/>

---