Test markup of MIT OpenCourseWare
67 views
Skip to first unread message
Peter Pinch
May 6, 2012, 1:56:09 PM5/6/12
to lr...@googlegroups.com
I finally found some time to do a (modest) test of applying LRMI metadata
to MIT OpenCourseWare.
http://www.hawklake.com/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science
/6-003-signals-and-systems-spring-2010/index.htm
Since we're a little outside the other examples, I had to make a few
assumptions and, unfortunately, I couldn't exercise all the properties
(namely, competencies).
I am left with some questions for the group:
We consider OCW to be intended for both teachers and students. How should
that be indicated with enduserrole: as a repeating value, or a value of
"both?" Or "all?"
I could use some help understanding the difference between intendedUse and
LearningResourceType. Perhaps a complete vocabulary would help here.
My test case was originally an undergraduate course. Is 18-21 the
appropriate age range?
This is a little outside of LRMI, but I'm wondering if there's a way to
express an authority or controlled vocab for topic. We've got topics
captured in 3 or 4 different vocabularies and I think it would be best to
express them all, but also distinguish them.
For now, I'm just trying to mark up the course as a whole. I think we may
have sufficient metadata to justify marking up all the resources as well.
So I may have more questions when I attempt that.
Thanks for any feedback and suggestions.
Peter Pinch
Production Manager, MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
to MIT OpenCourseWare.
http://www.hawklake.com/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science
/6-003-signals-and-systems-spring-2010/index.htm
Since we're a little outside the other examples, I had to make a few
assumptions and, unfortunately, I couldn't exercise all the properties
(namely, competencies).
I am left with some questions for the group:
We consider OCW to be intended for both teachers and students. How should
that be indicated with enduserrole: as a repeating value, or a value of
"both?" Or "all?"
I could use some help understanding the difference between intendedUse and
LearningResourceType. Perhaps a complete vocabulary would help here.
My test case was originally an undergraduate course. Is 18-21 the
appropriate age range?
This is a little outside of LRMI, but I'm wondering if there's a way to
express an authority or controlled vocab for topic. We've got topics
captured in 3 or 4 different vocabularies and I think it would be best to
express them all, but also distinguish them.
For now, I'm just trying to mark up the course as a whole. I think we may
have sufficient metadata to justify marking up all the resources as well.
So I may have more questions when I attempt that.
Thanks for any feedback and suggestions.
Peter Pinch
Production Manager, MIT OpenCourseWare
http://ocw.mit.edu
Monty Swiryn
Jun 14, 2012, 6:11:44 PM6/14/12
to lr...@googlegroups.com
Hello Peter,
If you wouldn't mind, would you please explain how the following code snippet was added to your sample test?
Thanks a lot,
Monty
<!-- Begin Automatic Metadata Insertion --> <meta content="6-003-signals-and-systems-spring-2010" name="WT.cg_n" /> <meta content="Course Home" name="WT.cg_s" /> <meta content="Signals and Systems" name="Title" /> <meta content="6.003 covers the fundamentals of signal and system analysis, focusing on representations of discrete-time and continuous-time signals (singularity functions, complex exponentials and geometrics, Fourier representations, Laplace and Z transforms, sampling) and representations of linear, time-invariant systems (difference and differential equations, block diagrams, system functions, poles and zeros, convolution, impulse and step responses, frequency responses). Applications are drawn broadly from engineering and physics, including feedback and control, communications, and signal processing." name="Description" /> <meta content="Freeman, Dennis" name="Author" /> <meta content="signal and system analysis,representations of discrete-time and continuous-time signals,representations of linear time-invariant systems,Fourier representations,Laplace and Z transforms,sampling,difference and differential equations,feedback and control,communications,signal processing" name="Keyword" /> <meta content="" name="Version" /> <meta content="6.003 Signals and Systems | Electrical Engineering and Computer Science" name="Search_Display" /> <!-- End Automatic Metadata Insertion -->
Peter Pinch
Jun 15, 2012, 9:41:15 AM6/15/12
to lr...@googlegroups.com
I'm glad my test markup is generating some conversation.
First off, Greg was correct in his assessment: I was adding LRMI/schema.org markup to an actual page, from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-003-signals-and-systems-spring-2010/index.htm
Since I'm planning to add LRMI markup to a large, existing site I needed to test that it didn't interfere with existing mark-up. And since this is a rather old page from a site with some history, there's a lot of metadata cruft in it.
That automatic metadata comment tag is just part of the page template, and the metadata is inserted by the OCW CMS, plone. The tags with names that start with "WT" are for WebTrends, the web analytics service we use. The others are for the Google yellow
box we use for site search. They are unfortunately redundant with some of the LRMI metadata, but I can't upset our legacy systems.
The LRMI tags show up elsewhere in the page, pretty much anywhere you see an itemProp attribute.
I realize now that providing a diff between this test version and the original might be helpful. I'll see if I can find a useful way to post that.
- Peter
-----------
Peter Pinch
Production Manager, MIT OpenCourseWare
Dan Brickley
Jun 15, 2012, 9:51:53 AM6/15/12
to lr...@googlegroups.com, pdp...@mit.edu, danbri
On 15 June 2012 15:41, Peter Pinch <pdp...@mit.edu> wrote:
> I'm glad my test markup is generating some conversation.
>
> First off, Greg was correct in his assessment: I was adding LRMI/schema.org
> markup to an actual page,
> from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-003-signals-and-systems-spring-2010/index.htm
>
> Since I'm planning to add LRMI markup to a large, existing site I needed to
> test that it didn't interfere with existing mark-up. And since this is a
> rather old page from a site with some history, there's a lot of metadata
> cruft in it.
>
> That automatic metadata comment tag is just part of the page template, and
> the metadata is inserted by the OCW CMS, plone. The tags with names that
> start with "WT" are for WebTrends, the web analytics service we use. The
> others are for the Google yellow box we use for site search. They are
> unfortunately redundant with some of the LRMI metadata, but I can't upset
> our legacy systems.
>
> The LRMI tags show up elsewhere in the page, pretty much anywhere you see an
> itemProp attribute.
>
> I realize now that providing a diff between this test version and the
> original might be helpful. I'll see if I can find a useful way to post
> that.
You mentioned controlled value lists. The approach to doing that is
> I'm glad my test markup is generating some conversation.
>
> First off, Greg was correct in his assessment: I was adding LRMI/schema.org
> markup to an actual page,
> from http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/electrical-engineering-and-computer-science/6-003-signals-and-systems-spring-2010/index.htm
>
> Since I'm planning to add LRMI markup to a large, existing site I needed to
> test that it didn't interfere with existing mark-up. And since this is a
> rather old page from a site with some history, there's a lot of metadata
> cruft in it.
>
> That automatic metadata comment tag is just part of the page template, and
> the metadata is inserted by the OCW CMS, plone. The tags with names that
> start with "WT" are for WebTrends, the web analytics service we use. The
> others are for the Google yellow box we use for site search. They are
> unfortunately redundant with some of the LRMI metadata, but I can't upset
> our legacy systems.
>
> The LRMI tags show up elsewhere in the page, pretty much anywhere you see an
> itemProp attribute.
>
> I realize now that providing a diff between this test version and the
> original might be helpful. I'll see if I can find a useful way to post
> that.
via URL links, http://blog.schema.org/2012/05/schemaorg-markup-for-external-lists.html
... do you have the lists online somewhere we could use in such a
manner?
Maybe this isn't a fair q, but from your experiences here ... do you
see any showstoppers or last minute fixes needed, before we go ahead
and add LRMI into Schema.org? We've scheduled it as part of 1.0, to
add during June, but I'm just working through the practicalities of
staging these additions now.
cheers,
Dan
Peter Pinch
Jun 15, 2012, 10:21:23 AM6/15/12
to Dan Brickley, lr...@googlegroups.com, danbri
Yeah... That isn't a fair question. =) But I'll try to answer it anyway.
I think the only thing you need to give some attention to is something I
didn't address in my test. LRMI proposes a useRightsUrl type "where the
owner specifies permissions for using the resource." I'd prefer to stick
with the richer RDFa standard put forth by Creative Commons
(http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa), which captures not only the
license but attribution information. It's not clear to me how to mix and
match these tags & types.
Beyond that, my remaining concerns aren't showstoppers. I do think there's
some more work to be done on best practices and controlled vocabularies. I
believe the proposal for external lists came out after I did my test. As
far as I can tell, it will provide the structure I'm looking for, but we
still need some agreement on common, useful vocabs.
There's also the question of how best to handle course-level items. That's
defined as out of scope right now, but I think there's going to be a lot
of demand for that very soon -- at least in higher ed. Aaron Bradley
suggested using schema.org/Event which would seem to get us pretty far in
supporting courses. I think the big missing bit of data is about
accreditation -- does the course offer credit, from who and how. Perhaps
GoodRelations can get at that -- since credit usually involves exchanging
money -- but I really don't know.
I think the only thing you need to give some attention to is something I
didn't address in my test. LRMI proposes a useRightsUrl type "where the
owner specifies permissions for using the resource." I'd prefer to stick
with the richer RDFa standard put forth by Creative Commons
(http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa), which captures not only the
license but attribution information. It's not clear to me how to mix and
match these tags & types.
Beyond that, my remaining concerns aren't showstoppers. I do think there's
some more work to be done on best practices and controlled vocabularies. I
believe the proposal for external lists came out after I did my test. As
far as I can tell, it will provide the structure I'm looking for, but we
still need some agreement on common, useful vocabs.
There's also the question of how best to handle course-level items. That's
defined as out of scope right now, but I think there's going to be a lot
of demand for that very soon -- at least in higher ed. Aaron Bradley
suggested using schema.org/Event which would seem to get us pretty far in
supporting courses. I think the big missing bit of data is about
accreditation -- does the course offer credit, from who and how. Perhaps
GoodRelations can get at that -- since credit usually involves exchanging
money -- but I really don't know.
Dan Brickley
Jun 15, 2012, 10:39:50 AM6/15/12
to Peter Pinch, lr...@googlegroups.com, danbri
On 15 June 2012 16:21, Peter Pinch <pdp...@mit.edu> wrote:
> Yeah... That isn't a fair question. =) But I'll try to answer it anyway.
:)
> Yeah... That isn't a fair question. =) But I'll try to answer it anyway.
> I think the only thing you need to give some attention to is something I
> didn't address in my test. LRMI proposes a useRightsUrl type "where the
> owner specifies permissions for using the resource." I'd prefer to stick
> with the richer RDFa standard put forth by Creative Commons
> (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/RDFa), which captures not only the
> license but attribution information. It's not clear to me how to mix and
> match these tags & types.
Microdata, but you can manage with either. There is a gentle drift
towards RDFa adoption now that RDFa 1.1 is finalised, but until the
major consumers fully handle it, I think most publishers will stick
with Microdata.
From "The itemprop attribute, if specified, must have a value that is
an unordered set of unique space-separated tokens that are
case-sensitive, representing the names of the name-value pairs that it
adds." ... this allows
"Each token must be either: A valid URL that is an absolute URL, or If
the item is a typed item: a defined property name allowed in this
situation according to the specification that defines the relevant
types for the item, or ... if the item is not a typed item: a string
that contains no U+002E FULL STOP characters (.) and no U+003A COLON
characters (:)."
So you can add new properties by deploying them with a full url. I
expect this should allow you to add the earlier CC RDFa properties
directly, mixed in with schema.org / LRMI.
In specific case of useRightsUrl, per discussion at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2012May/0093.html
this is one of the few points at which schema.org won't adopt some
vocabulary.
> Beyond that, my remaining concerns aren't showstoppers. I do think there's
> some more work to be done on best practices and controlled vocabularies. I
> believe the proposal for external lists came out after I did my test. As
> far as I can tell, it will provide the structure I'm looking for, but we
> still need some agreement on common, useful vocabs.
some examples of the kinds of vocabulary you're using?
BTW here are some notes from a discussion last week about using
European Broadcasting Union (EBU, aka Eurovision) genre codes,
http://www.w3.org/wiki/WebSchemas/EBUGenreEnumeration
> There's also the question of how best to handle course-level items. That's
> defined as out of scope right now, but I think there's going to be a lot
> of demand for that very soon -- at least in higher ed. Aaron Bradley
> suggested using schema.org/Event which would seem to get us pretty far in
> supporting courses.
> I think the big missing bit of data is about
> accreditation -- does the course offer credit, from who and how. Perhaps
> GoodRelations can get at that -- since credit usually involves exchanging
> money -- but I really don't know.
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Badges that deserves investigating too.
My main concern currently is on the integration between schema.org's
sub-vocabularies. So I want some reassurance that the vocabulary we
have for videos (e.g. as deployed on YouTube) aligns with scenarios
from the education/learning world on describing their educational
aspects. Same with GR/LRMI etc. While GR for Courses can come later,
I'd like to know that e.g. a book for sale (e.g.
http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Linear-Algebra-Third-Edition/dp/0961408898
) could benefit from both GR and LMRI within sensible looking markup.
cheers,
Dan
Peter Pinch
Jun 15, 2012, 11:14:13 AM6/15/12
to lr...@googlegroups.com, danbri
Thanks Dan. A lot to chew over.
I'll try to tackle some video examples over the next few days, but I think
any issues are going to come down to the ones already covered: usage
rights and vocabularies for educationalUse and learningResourceType.
Oh, and while I have you -- if there's anyone working on accessibility,
I'd be interested in helping out. I know it's out of scope for LRMI, but
it needs to be addressed at a more global level anyway.
I'll try to tackle some video examples over the next few days, but I think
any issues are going to come down to the ones already covered: usage
rights and vocabularies for educationalUse and learningResourceType.
Oh, and while I have you -- if there's anyone working on accessibility,
I'd be interested in helping out. I know it's out of scope for LRMI, but
it needs to be addressed at a more global level anyway.
Greg Grossmeier
Jun 15, 2012, 7:06:05 PM6/15/12
to lr...@googlegroups.com, danbri
<quote name="Peter Pinch" date="2012-06-15" time="15:14:13 +0000">
accessibility experts working on a draft proposal for Schema.org and I
am in conversation with them.
Greg
--
Greg Grossmeier
Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
> Oh, and while I have you -- if there's anyone working on accessibility,
> I'd be interested in helping out. I know it's out of scope for LRMI, but
> it needs to be addressed at a more global level anyway.
I can jump in on that one: Yes. That is in the works. There are actual
> I'd be interested in helping out. I know it's out of scope for LRMI, but
> it needs to be addressed at a more global level anyway.
accessibility experts working on a draft proposal for Schema.org and I
am in conversation with them.
Greg
--
Greg Grossmeier
Education Technology & Policy Coordinator
twitter: @g_gerg / identi.ca: @greg / skype: greg.grossmeier
Dan Brickley
Jun 17, 2012, 6:55:30 AM6/17/12
to lr...@googlegroups.com, danbri
On 16 June 2012 01:06, Greg Grossmeier <gr...@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> <quote name="Peter Pinch" date="2012-06-15" time="15:14:13 +0000">
>> Oh, and while I have you -- if there's anyone working on accessibility,
>> I'd be interested in helping out. I know it's out of scope for LRMI, but
>> it needs to be addressed at a more global level anyway.
>
> I can jump in on that one: Yes. That is in the works. There are actual
> accessibility experts working on a draft proposal for Schema.org and I
> am in conversation with them.
Great to hear that. The topic has certainly been mentioned (albeit
> <quote name="Peter Pinch" date="2012-06-15" time="15:14:13 +0000">
>> Oh, and while I have you -- if there's anyone working on accessibility,
>> I'd be interested in helping out. I know it's out of scope for LRMI, but
>> it needs to be addressed at a more global level anyway.
>
> I can jump in on that one: Yes. That is in the works. There are actual
> accessibility experts working on a draft proposal for Schema.org and I
> am in conversation with them.
inconclusively) a few times.
RDF descriptions and accessibility have crossed paths in a few ways
over the years. I don't think there's a single 'accessibility' task
here.
For example, in http://www.w3.org/1999/11/11-WWWProposal/atagdemo
Charles McCathie-Nevile and I made a demo where the things being
described in terms of their accessibility characteristics were Web
authoring tools. Others have looked at expressing content
accessibility in similar fashion. The EARL work and associated specs
are in that direction, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/#introduction ... I think W3C EARL
addresses both the content-description and tool-description use cases
in a single generic manner.
More broadly, you can take any efforts towards opening up of travel
and navigation data, including "points of interest" markup, route
planning, open schedule data, etc. as Web-based progress in support of
accessible travel (e.g. for vision and motion impaired people). Some
old notes from William Loughborough here -
http://wiki.foaf-project.org/z/index.php?title=AccessiblePlanet ...
BTW if you happen to know Yerba Buena Gardens in San Fransisco, you
might have seen little black 'talking sign' units there, attached to
trees. That was William's invention; they broadcast directional infra
red, an analog encoding of loops of sound - spoken location
descriptions - to help blind pedestrians orient themselves. Some years
ago I visited Boston museum as they were installing the same system -
see http://www.talkingsigns.com/ . William's semweb/accessibility
dream was that they would instead broadcast Web identifiers - URIs -
so that the identified location could be joined with Web-based RDF to
more fully describe the location, rather than each beacon containing
pre-recorded, and fixed, audio. Note that about 1/3 of schema.org's
set of types address 'points of interest' (local businesses etc), so
we are somewhat in that business already... and I hope we go further!
Can you share any more details of the accessibility topics you're
looking at? Is it particularly around learning/education and content
description?
cheers,
Dan
Greg Grossmeier
Jun 18, 2012, 2:15:28 PM6/18/12
to lr...@googlegroups.com, danbri
Hi Dan,
<quote name="Dan Brickley" date="2012-06-17" time="12:55:30 +0200">
> RDF descriptions and accessibility have crossed paths in a few ways
> over the years. I don't think there's a single 'accessibility' task
> here.
>
> For example, in http://www.w3.org/1999/11/11-WWWProposal/atagdemo
> Charles McCathie-Nevile and I made a demo where the things being
> described in terms of their accessibility characteristics were Web
> authoring tools. Others have looked at expressing content
> accessibility in similar fashion. The EARL work and associated specs
> are in that direction, see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/#introduction ... I think W3C EARL
> addresses both the content-description and tool-description use cases
> in a single generic manner.
Interesting, thanks. Taking a look at this now.
> More broadly, you can take any efforts towards opening up of travel
> and navigation data, including "points of interest" markup, route
> planning, open schedule data, etc. as Web-based progress in support of
> accessible travel (e.g. for vision and motion impaired people). Some
> old notes from William Loughborough here -
> http://wiki.foaf-project.org/z/index.php?title=AccessiblePlanet ...
Also reading.
> BTW if you happen to know Yerba Buena Gardens in San Fransisco, you
> might have seen little black 'talking sign' units there, attached to
> trees. That was William's invention; they broadcast directional infra
> red, an analog encoding of loops of sound - spoken location
> descriptions - to help blind pedestrians orient themselves. Some years
> ago I visited Boston museum as they were installing the same system -
> see http://www.talkingsigns.com/ . William's semweb/accessibility
> dream was that they would instead broadcast Web identifiers - URIs -
> so that the identified location could be joined with Web-based RDF to
> more fully describe the location, rather than each beacon containing
> pre-recorded, and fixed, audio. Note that about 1/3 of schema.org's
> set of types address 'points of interest' (local businesses etc), so
> we are somewhat in that business already... and I hope we go further!
Interesting!
> Can you share any more details of the accessibility topics you're
> looking at? Is it particularly around learning/education and content
> description?
Honestly, the details I know are that interesting since I haven't seen
any of the actual spec yet.
<quote name="Dan Brickley" date="2012-06-17" time="12:55:30 +0200">
> On 16 June 2012 01:06, Greg Grossmeier <gr...@creativecommons.org> wrote:
> > <quote name="Peter Pinch" date="2012-06-15" time="15:14:13 +0000">
> >> Oh, and while I have you -- if there's anyone working on accessibility,
> >> I'd be interested in helping out. I know it's out of scope for LRMI, but
> >> it needs to be addressed at a more global level anyway.
> >
> > I can jump in on that one: Yes. That is in the works. There are actual
> > accessibility experts working on a draft proposal for Schema.org and I
> > am in conversation with them.
>
> Great to hear that. The topic has certainly been mentioned (albeit
> inconclusively) a few times.
Yeah, there were a couple false starts within LRMI itself, even.
> > <quote name="Peter Pinch" date="2012-06-15" time="15:14:13 +0000">
> >> Oh, and while I have you -- if there's anyone working on accessibility,
> >> I'd be interested in helping out. I know it's out of scope for LRMI, but
> >> it needs to be addressed at a more global level anyway.
> >
> > I can jump in on that one: Yes. That is in the works. There are actual
> > accessibility experts working on a draft proposal for Schema.org and I
> > am in conversation with them.
>
> Great to hear that. The topic has certainly been mentioned (albeit
> inconclusively) a few times.
> RDF descriptions and accessibility have crossed paths in a few ways
> over the years. I don't think there's a single 'accessibility' task
> here.
>
> For example, in http://www.w3.org/1999/11/11-WWWProposal/atagdemo
> Charles McCathie-Nevile and I made a demo where the things being
> described in terms of their accessibility characteristics were Web
> authoring tools. Others have looked at expressing content
> accessibility in similar fashion. The EARL work and associated specs
> are in that direction, see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/#introduction ... I think W3C EARL
> addresses both the content-description and tool-description use cases
> in a single generic manner.
> More broadly, you can take any efforts towards opening up of travel
> and navigation data, including "points of interest" markup, route
> planning, open schedule data, etc. as Web-based progress in support of
> accessible travel (e.g. for vision and motion impaired people). Some
> old notes from William Loughborough here -
> http://wiki.foaf-project.org/z/index.php?title=AccessiblePlanet ...
> BTW if you happen to know Yerba Buena Gardens in San Fransisco, you
> might have seen little black 'talking sign' units there, attached to
> trees. That was William's invention; they broadcast directional infra
> red, an analog encoding of loops of sound - spoken location
> descriptions - to help blind pedestrians orient themselves. Some years
> ago I visited Boston museum as they were installing the same system -
> see http://www.talkingsigns.com/ . William's semweb/accessibility
> dream was that they would instead broadcast Web identifiers - URIs -
> so that the identified location could be joined with Web-based RDF to
> more fully describe the location, rather than each beacon containing
> pre-recorded, and fixed, audio. Note that about 1/3 of schema.org's
> set of types address 'points of interest' (local businesses etc), so
> we are somewhat in that business already... and I hope we go further!
> Can you share any more details of the accessibility topics you're
> looking at? Is it particularly around learning/education and content
> description?
any of the actual spec yet.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages