Marked up XML data

[Suliman, Suraiya H]

Hello All,

I'm working on the LRMI Tagger app. The Tagger will allow tagging of XML data with LRMI tags. Attached is an example marked up XML derived from Greg's marked up HTML on:

http://grossmeier.net/lrmi/Complex_Area_Problems-edited.html

I'm asking for feedback on the XML tagging format as this will be the output of the Tagger and we'd like to get that right.

Regards,
Suraiya

[Greg Grossmeier]

Thanks Suraiya!

I think this derivation seems reasonable. I can't find anything
incorrect with it but I would love for someone else from the LRMI TWG to
chime in as well; we love peer review.

Relatedly, I have attached an RDF representation of the LRMI spec as
submitted to Schema.org. I have not yet shared this with the LRMI TWG
but I would also love for a few LRMI TWG members to review this as well
for accuracy. It was hand crafted and may have errors.

LRMI TWG Members: Please review the two files for accuracy and
completeness.

Thanks!

Greg

<quote name="Suliman, Suraiya H" date="2012-04-10" time="23:59:46 +0000">

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

[Phil Barker]

Hello Suraiya,
Assuming that you intend there to be three top-level items (where Greg's
marked up HTML has one), then I would say that this seems a bit odd to
me but I think it is technically correct.

I probably find it odd just because I don't fully understand your use
case of marking up XML with LRMI tags. Why not XML without the
schema.org/LRMI tags? For example, why is
<meta itemprop="title" content="Complex Area Problems" />
preferable to
<title>Complex Area Problems</title>
why not go as far as <dc:title> -- I think Stuart Sutton was suggesting
this on the Learning Registry call last night

By the way, AFAIK there is no itemprop "title" in shema.org, but the
itemprop "name" has the same semantics for learning resources.

I had an attempt at manually converting the example you sent to
something that could go through the google rich snippets testing tool.
You can see it as far as I got at
http://pjjk.net/lrmiexx/ExampleLRMI.html (view source, or follow the
link to see what Google extracts from the microdata). If you want XML
marked up with LRMI, there might be some advantage in using a
constrained set of HTML tags that is also well formatted XML if it
allows existing microdata parsers to make sense of the documents.

Phil

--
<http://www.icbl.hw.ac.uk/~philb/>
Please note new email address: phil....@hw.ac.uk

--
Heriot-Watt University is the Sunday Times
Scottish University of the Year 2011-2012

We invite research leaders and ambitious early career
researchers to join us in leading and driving research
in key inter-disciplinary themes. Please see

http://www.hw.ac.uk/researchleaders

for further information and how to apply.

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

[Stuart Sutton]

Phil, I, too, stumble a bit with the "use case" issue with defining a record structure for LRMI in XML (or any other serialization).  LRMI defines a small _vocabulary_ useful in markup.  It does not define a record structure or provide the means for what I would consider rich description...or, at least, I haven't seen it thought of in that manner or discussed as such.  So, it's the notion of LRMI as stand-alone resource description language for general use  outside markup that has me puzzled (but I am likely just missing the point). 

Using the case framed in Dan's email to the LR list prior to yesterday's call, I am doubly puzzled as to why you would want create a instance of an LRMI local "record" describing a learning resource when you already have a much more semantically rich description (i.e., a "record") in LOM or a record in one of the serializations of DC+ (also semantically richer than LRMI).   My point on the call was that mapping out from these richer descriptions (and other project-specific rich descriptions) in existing repositories using LRMI for markup purposes makes sense and is generally straight-forward.   If for no other reason, mapping to LRMI from well-established vocabularies makes sense because of the _potential_ uptake of LRMI by schema.org (thus uptake by the major search engines).  This also indicates one good reason why someone might opt in markup to use itemprop "name" and not "dc:title" (even though I have a certain natural affinity for the latter). 

Stuart

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

[Joshua Marks]

+1 (Or +2 if I could). Not to mention the missing vocabulary part, it is a set of tag types not a vocabulary or a formal meta record.

 

Joshua Marks

CTO

Curriki: The Global Education and Learning Community

jma...@curriki.org

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.