W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-credentials@w3.org > February 2015

Re: [ba-standard] Badge Creator-Issuer Distinction Post - Please Comment

From: Eric Korb <eric.korb@accreditrust.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 09:38:45 -0500
Message-ID: <CAMX+RnD2-sN1p2C013n03gxiQtnw2qGVkTxW3Vb-nXE-MKPLOQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: ba-standard@googlegroups.com, Credentials Community Group <public-credentials@w3.org>
My concerns are the following:

1) Will endorsements just become what "LinkedIn" endorsements have become:
worthless? Without any validation of authority to offer such endorsement,
where's the value or trust?

2) What happens when an issuer changes the badge class meta-data?  Perhaps
the change is such that the endorser no longer wants to endorse the badge,
but will never know unless they keep checking (and would subsequently need
to revoke their endorsement).  What about badges that were already in place
based on the original badgeclass metadata?  I suspect the issuer will be
required to create a new badge, but how do you enforce that?

I suggest that signing the badge class would ensure its definition is not
modified thereby adding trust (and value) to all constituents.

Eric

On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 9:15 AM, Kerri Lemoie <kerri@achievery.com> wrote:

> Hi Karen,
>
> Would you be interested in exploring creating an extension that would
> allow for archiving? The extension could allow for binary data to be added
> to a badge in addition to textual evidence. In some cases, depending on the
> size of the data, this could make the badge unavailable to the current
> backpack (which has a 256k limit) but it could still allow for the
> portability you’re describing.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Kerri
> ---
> Kerri Lemoie
> CTO
> Achievery
> http://achievery.com
> @kayaelle @Achievery100
>
> On Feb 5, 2015, at 9:05 AM, Karen Jeffrey <kjeffrey@forallsystems.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> Thanks for your response!  Since the current version of the standard
> doesn't provide archiving, it would be helpful to use "Portability" instead
> of "Archiving" in your document.  Portability is still misleading, since
> most people think it means archiving, but saying that the Open Badges are
> archivable is inaccurate.
>
> The primary use for Open Badges is for micro-credentialing.  As such, the
> badge information is kept in the issuer's care in order to insure
> authenticity of the credential.  This is a design choice.  If you're
> interested in using Open Badges for supporting learning, then archiving the
> badges with the learner becomes more important.  As you might have guessed,
> this is where we've been working.  More info is here:
> http://blog.forallrubrics.com/2014/05/12/badging-technology-for-a-maker-party/
>  We badged another maker party with Chicago Hive and the Chicago City of
> Learning a couple of weeks ago and I'm planning to post an update soon.
>
> All the best,
>
> Karen
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 4, 2015 at 12:59:32 PM UTC-6, tim wrote:
>>
>> Karen,
>>   Thanks for the note. Great feedback! Try and leave comments on the
>> Medium post to keep things organized.
>>
>> 1. Ensuring Archiving is not necessarily something within the control of
>> the standard. That is a bigger question involving the future of the
>> *place* (currently “backpacks”) where Badges are stored and where their
>> associated evidence is stored. The standard suggests that evidence should
>> exist, but it is up to the producers of the platforms (and “backpacks”) to
>> decide how well they support archiving of evidence and the long-term
>> management of a learner’s portfolio.
>>
>> 2. Agreed. If you notice in my writing I mention the possibility of *any* identity
>> type being able to Create, Earn, and Issue a badge. Currently only
>> organizations can do this, I’m proposing that both individuals and
>> organizations would be empowered, within the standard, to do this. In my
>> post, individuals are empowered *much* more because they are able to be
>> endorsed to issue badges, and are able to endorse others.
>>
>> Tim
>> @timothyfcook <https://twitter.com/timothyfcook>
>>
>> On Feb 4, 2015, at 12:55 PM, Karen Jeffrey <kjef...@forallsystems.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> Tim and all,
>>
>> Thanks for the great write up!  I think the work you all are doing is
>> great.  I do have a couple of concerns that I'd like to bring up.  I've
>> been busy with other stuff, so please let me know if what I'm saying is out
>> of date or a misunderstanding.
>>
>> 1.  Archiving, the first value of badges Tim mentions, is not supported
>> by the current OBI standard.  Badge issuers can support the OBI standards
>> and still not allow learners to download their own badge information.  The
>> badge information transferred via the OBI standard consists of url's, not
>> the actual information itself.  The hosted information could change or
>> disappear at anytime.  Even if an issuer chooses to support baked badges or
>> the older version of the standard, the baked badge only includes urls for
>> the criteria and evidence.  So that essential info is not archived.
>>
>> 2.  The internet and digital technologies open up the possibility for
>> making our society a more equitable and just environment for all.
>> Nowadays, more and more employment opportunities are based the work you've
>> done rather than who you know or what social groups you belong too.  I
>> am concerned that endorsements are recreating our embedded system
>> of privilege and inequity in the badge world.  Rather than value being
>> generated and controlled top down, we have the opportunity to give learners
>> a voice and put them in control.
>>
>> All the best,
>>
>> Karen
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "BA Standard Working Group" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to ba-standard...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "BA Standard Working Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ba-standard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "BA Standard Working Group" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to ba-standard+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
Received on Thursday, 5 February 2015 14:39:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 11 July 2018 21:19:22 UTC