LRMI Version 0.7: Open Comment period ends January 31st

Showing 1-8 of 8 messages
LRMI Version 0.7: Open Comment period ends January 31st Greg Grossmeier 1/23/12 2:18 PM
The latest version of the LRMI specification, version 0.7, is now in
public comment.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Properties/Version_0.7

Public comment ends *January 31st*.

Please provide any feedback on the LRMI mailing list:
http://groups.google.com/group/lrmi

The hope is that this version, with any issues presented during this
public comment period fixed, to be the version submitted to Schema.org
for inclusion.

Best,

Greg

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

Re: LRMI Version 0.7: Open Comment period ends January 31st Dan Brickley 1/27/12 5:46 AM
On Jan 23, 11:18 pm, Greg Grossmeier <g...@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> The latest version of the LRMI specification, version 0.7, is now in
> public comment.
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Properties/Version_0.7
>
> Public comment ends *January 31st*.
>
> Please provide any feedback on the LRMI mailing list:http://groups.google.com/group/lrmi
>
> The hope is that this version, with any issues presented during this
> public comment period fixed, to be the version submitted to Schema.org
> for inclusion.

Hi folks. Great to see this coming along! I've a question about
questions...

Specifically it has recently been suggested by at least two parties
that schema.org should add vocab to support description of "Question
and Answer" sites / threads.

For example see thread with Nick Craver from Stack Overflow via
Twitter, https://twitter.com/#!/Nick_Craver/status/162642972515647489
Copy/pasted
:
@Nick_Craver you're not the first to ask, re Q/A type for schema.org.
Do you have any more detailed thoughts re requirements?
@danbri I think we'd be more than happy to take time a fully flush it
out if it would help better the internet Q&A community as a whole
@danbri Off the cuff, question: title, body, author, link, answers
with: body, author, link...no current format is even in the ballpark"

This exchange in turn led to some discussion pointing at IMS
educational technology specs, https://twitter.com/#!/lastkaled/status/162879844663824384
e.g. http://imsglobal.org/question/qtiv2p1pd2/imsqti_mdudv2p1pd2.html#section10027

Classic schema scoping issues. Do you have a sense for how LRMI
relates to these kinds of scenario for schema.org descriptions?

cheers,

Dan
Re: LRMI Version 0.7: Open Comment period ends January 31st Brian Ausland 1/27/12 5:55 AM
Thanks Greg, my team and I are going to go through this top to bottom next week.
Great work, nice detail.

-Brian
California Center for the Advancement of Digital Resources in Education
California Dept. of Education
Re: LRMI Version 0.7: Open Comment period ends January 31st Greg Grossmeier 1/30/12 9:39 AM
Hi Dan!

<quote name="Dan Brickley" date="2012-01-27" time="05:46:25 -0800">


> Hi folks. Great to see this coming along! I've a question about
> questions...
>
> Specifically it has recently been suggested by at least two parties
> that schema.org should add vocab to support description of "Question
> and Answer" sites / threads.
>
> For example see thread with Nick Craver from Stack Overflow via
> Twitter, https://twitter.com/#!/Nick_Craver/status/162642972515647489
> Copy/pasted:
> @Nick_Craver you're not the first to ask, re Q/A type for schema.org.
> Do you have any more detailed thoughts re requirements?
> @danbri I think we'd be more than happy to take time a fully flush it
> out if it would help better the internet Q&A community as a whole
> @danbri Off the cuff, question: title, body, author, link, answers
> with: body, author, link...no current format is even in the ballpark"
>
> This exchange in turn led to some discussion pointing at IMS
> educational technology specs, https://twitter.com/#!/lastkaled/status/162879844663824384
> e.g. http://imsglobal.org/question/qtiv2p1pd2/imsqti_mdudv2p1pd2.html#section10027

Very interesting.

> Classic schema scoping issues. Do you have a sense for how LRMI
> relates to these kinds of scenario for schema.org descriptions?

Probably not very directly, or at least, not at this point in the
process.

I would look to the StackExchange community for guidance in this issue,
personally.

Best,

Greg

RE: LRMI Version 0.7: Open Comment period ends January 31st Joshua Marks 1/31/12 5:11 PM
I agree. I believe we need a separate and detailed list of
preferred/suggested values for each of these string based properties. We
also need a list of indentified competency promulgators that might be
referenced in a alignment.

Joshua Marks
CTO
Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community
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.


-----Original Message-----
From: lrmi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:lrmi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf
Of Kurt Bollacker
Sent: Tuesday, January 31, 2012 3:51 PM
To: LRMI; LRMI TWG
Cc: Kurt Bollacker
Subject: Re: LRMI Version 0.7: Open Comment period ends January 31st


Given the context of all of our discussion, things appear to be in
order.  One comment I will make is that I thought that we would define
the set of allowed values (the enumeration) for alignmentType, rather
than leave it a free-form text field.

Similarly, I thought we would generate a richer list of suggested
learningResourceType values and at least take a stab at
interactivityType values.

                                                        Kurt :-)

On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 02:18:24PM -0800, Greg Grossmeier wrote:
> The latest version of the LRMI specification, version 0.7, is now in
> public comment.
>
> http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Properties/Version_0.7
>
> Public comment ends *January 31st*.
>
> Please provide any feedback on the LRMI mailing list:
> http://groups.google.com/group/lrmi
>
> The hope is that this version, with any issues presented during this
> public comment period fixed, to be the version submitted to Schema.org
> for inclusion.
>
> Best,
>
> Greg
>
> --
> Greg Grossmeier
> Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
> twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
>

Re: LRMI Version 0.7: Open Comment period ends January 31st Mike Collett 2/2/12 4:14 AM
Hi all

There has been considerable work undertaken in the UK and Europe.
see
http://europeanschoolnet-vbe.lexaurus.net/

This represents European Schoolnet, work mostly for metadata for their Learning Resource Exchange. It has vocabularies for many LOM properties including the LOM terms.

Most terms have been translated into European languages.
Also included are NSDL resource types and Re-usable Educational Software Library keywords.
There are various vocabularies used in a French education LOM profile, LOMFR.

For some UK vocabularies see
http://public.lexaurus.net/

This includes an encoding of the National Curriculum for schools in England organised into tagging terms (National Curriculum Specifiers) and into Programmes of Study and Schemes of work. This uses both keystages based on year groups and attainment level.

Also included are subject vocabularies used for various Higher ed and further ed projects (eg JACS, QCA, ACLearn, NLN) plus the Australian School thesaurus. And some vocabs for NDRB, a now defunct National Digital Resource Bank, including NDRB Learning Resource Type that resued some LOM and LRE terms.

For a set of Dutch education vocabularies see
http://kennisnet.lexaurus.net/

So there are already several stabs at learningResourceType and a few for interactivityType amongst other things.

Cheers
Mike 7:-D
-----------
Mike Collett, Schemeta
+44 7798 728 747
------------
www.schemeta.com
email: mi...@schemeta.com
twitter: @schemeta
skype: mikecollett

people are the network

Fleshing out enumerations (was Re: LRMI Version 0.7: Open Comment period ends January 31st) Greg Grossmeier 2/2/12 10:37 AM
Hi Kurt,

<quote name="Kurt Bollacker" date="2012-01-31" time="15:51:14 -0800">


>
> Given the context of all of our discussion, things appear to be in
> order.  One comment I will make is that I thought that we would define
> the set of allowed values (the enumeration) for alignmentType, rather
> than leave it a free-form text field.

You are exactly right.

I have filled out this page with content that is basically what we have
been discussing. Let me know if the language is/isn't clear.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/alignmentType

> Similarly, I thought we would generate a richer list of suggested
> learningResourceType values and at least take a stab at
> interactivityType values.

I'm having a tough time generating the list of learning resource type
values. This one feels harder to pin down an enumeration than the other
terms. I could be wrong.

RE: interactivityType, I updated that page as well:

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/LRMI/Properties/interactivityType

Best,

Greg

Re: LRMI Version 0.7: Open Comment period ends January 31st Greg Grossmeier 2/2/12 10:40 AM
Thanks much, Mike!

I'll take a look at those and see what concepts make sense in the LRMI
context.

All the best,

Greg

<quote name="Mike Collett" date="2012-02-02" time="12:14:59 +0000">