adding additional fields

[Antonio Martín Garre]

Hello! 

If you need to add an attribute "price" to a LRMI compliant application/ld+json object...

is it still a LRMI compliant object? 

For example:

<script type="application/ld+json"> {

 "@context": "http://schema.org/", 

 "@type": "CreativeWork", 

 "name": "Designing a treasure map", 

 "price":"30€"

...

Thank you!

[Hugh Paterson III]

My understanding is that in your case you would look to schema.org as the validating schema, not LRMI. So adding price would still be valid schema.org JSON+LD. Mixing additional metadata in with LRMI does not negate the validity of LRMI's metadata fields. LRMI does not specifically endorse a syntax— it could be expressed in YAML, just as much as schema.org JSON+LD.  In contrast, schema.org does prescribe several syntaxes. I'm going out on a limb here, but I would classify then LRMI as a metadata "application profile". The strength or weakness of it lies in the ability of the profile to be mixed and matched with other profiles by producers and consumers.

- Hugh

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lrmi/1756d46a-4330-4f72-a707-0a3610630929n%40googlegroups.com.

[Antonio Martín Garre]

Very clarifying response. Thank you! 

Does anybody else miss an attribute like "categories/tags" in LRMI?

[Hugh Paterson III]

Categories/tags are often talked about together in WordPress development and in that context they are types of taxonomies. In the WordPress context, categories can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people, it really depends on the use case. So there is no real simple answer (even though there are different ways to categorize learning resources and use taxonomies, and LRMI does have taxonomies, for example there is the learningResourceType, however these taxonomies often don't have their own terms they require the implemented to provide their own terms). Tags in contrast to categories, are often another term for "keywords" which are often related to or recast as "subjects" In schema.org this would be " about " schema.org/about .

- Hugh

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lrmi/5f559f55-33c1-42fd-9617-4302b1c2d90dn%40googlegroups.com.

[Stuart Sutton]

I would expand a bit on Hugh's response. LRMI is a very terse vocabulary intended to only describe the educational aspects of some resource.  Used by itself, LRMI would result in a very poor description of anything. It is intended to be used along with properties from other (one or more) schemas such as schema.org, Dublin Core, etc.) to create an application profile.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lrmi/CAE%3D3Ky9n7nj0bG8aR3afDaQYxL8yCGqmHgBJVTfJ8yyW9gZv1A%40mail.gmail.com.

[Phil Barker]

In addition to what Hugh and Stuart have said, and relating to your example: the schema.org property you are looking for is "offers". It's not as simple as a single value because the same thing may be offered at different prices by different people. So

<script type="application/ld+json"> {

 "@context": "http://schema.org/", 

 "@type": "CreativeWork", 

 "name": "Designing a treasure map", 

 "offers": [{

   "@type": "Offer",

   "offeredBy": "Estamos Piratas S.A.",

   "price": 30,

   "priceCurrency": "EUR"

 },{

   "@type": "Offer",

   "offeredBy": "Baratas Piratas S.A.",

   "price": 20,

   "priceCurrency": "EUR"

 }],

...

(What properties you supply for the "Offer" object will depend on the policy of the application consuming the metadata; I think that for Google search only price is required.)

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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lrmi/1756d46a-4330-4f72-a707-0a3610630929n%40googlegroups.com.

--

Phil Barker. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
PJJK Limited: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education.

CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090
PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282.

[Adrian Pohl]

Hi Antonio,

Am 05.06.21 um 12:59 schrieb Antonio Martín Garre:

> Does anybody else miss an attribute like "categories/tags" in LRMI?

We are creating and LRMI/schema.org-based metadata profile at
https://github.com/dini-ag-kim/lrmi-profile

It's largely in German but you can take a look at the JSON [Schema] and
the [examples].

With regard to subject indexing with controlled values, we are using
https://schema.org/about. For freely chosen tags, we are using
https://schema.org/keywords.

All the best
Adrian

[Schema]
https://dini-ag-kim.github.io/lrmi-profile/draft/schemas/schema.json

[examples]
https://github.com/dini-ag-kim/lrmi-profile/tree/main/draft/examples/valid

[Antonio Martín Garre]

Thank you Adrian, this is very similar what we need. I think it will help us a lot. 

Thank you all for your replies, I really appreciate it. I think if everyone talked more and relied on standards instead of reinventing the wheel once and again, digital world would be a better place :)

Kind regards,

--
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.

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lrmi/11818547-978b-4524-32cf-fce010c9b706%40hbz-nrw.de.

[Steve Midgley]

Speaking of LRMI and tagging, Phil and I, and a few others, have been working on a profile of LRMI that tries to go a little deeper into a content model for traditional curricular materials (aka textbooks). You are welcome to anything you can use there too: https://k12ocx.github.io/k12ocx-specs/

Steve

To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/lrmi/CAFaLbvJaWvJC%3DRLuDwXPugQqfcGybupbuXXY3tUH4gfk33cjvg%40mail.gmail.com.