- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 12:02:04 +0000
- To: Richard Wallis <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>
- Cc: public-eocred-schema@w3.org
- Message-ID: <0a29f8d7-7fd5-350c-bd29-bed4f4e33088@pjjk.co.uk>
Richard, I think we mostly agree, we are just looking from different
perspectives.
I think we are both saying that organizations providing learning
opportunities (for simplicity let's say Courses) should give the cost of
the Course and link to the Credential may be awarded on completing that
Course, and organizations providing Credentials should give the cost of
that Credential (and where feasible link to Courses that are suitable).
I am wary about AddregateOffer <http://schema.org/AggregateOffer>
because it relates to the same item offered by different merchants, not
different Courses offered by different Colleges.
An addOn <http://schema.org/addOn> offer implies that the addOn *can
only be obtained *in combination with the base offer. So this is not the
case when there are a large number of courses that could lead to the
Credential. I suggested a while back in this thread that where there is
a closely associated course offered by the same organization [as offers
the credential] it may appropriate to use the addOn property to link to
this. Where a course is normally required in order to gain a credential,
but this course is not offered by the same organization, then [whatever
solution we come up with for the use case we have about eligibility
requirements] should be used.
Phil
On 30/01/18 11:27, Richard Wallis wrote:
> Phil, you make a good point about clarifying the use case(s) in this
> area.
>
> As you identify there are components, and their associated cost(s),
> and requirements (courses, experience, memberships, previously
> obtained credentials (eg. from a different jurisdiction), etc.
> Dependant on particular users’ circumstances these could easily expand
> into a significant multi-dimension matrix of possibilities and costs.
>
> Going back to Schema.org basics, it is about describing /Things/ and
> their relationships. In your scenario we have some basic Things
> (components) — the Credential; the /Organization/(s) which provide the
> credential; the /Offer/(s) that /Organization/(s) make to provide the
> Credential detailing/referencing any costs and criteria for a specific
> Offer; a /Course/ that either [if successfully completed] leads to
> obtaining a Credential or, is a requirement for gaining a Credential;
> the Organization(s) /Offer/ing the Courses with associated costs etc.
>
> Dependant on your view or use, these Things may be related in
> different ways with either the /Course/, Credential, or /Organization/
> being seen as the primary searchable component, but if they are
> related correctly all views should be supportable.
>
> As discussed previously, Course <http://schema.org/Course>,
> Organization <http://schema.org/Organization>, and Offer
> <http://schema.org/Offer> are already established Types in Schema.org,
> [with a few tweaks to link a Credential Thing into the model] taking
> us a long way towards our goal. With the AggregateOffer
> <http://schema.org/AggregateOffer> subtype, and properties such as
> addOn <http://schema.org/addOn>, the /Offer/ functionality, plus lots
> of established practice in Schema.org for complex offers to sell
> Products or loan items, is sufficient to describe our needs, at least
> initially.
>
> A simple case of an Organization offering a course with subsequent
> credential, or the credential on its own if the applicant had
> sufficient qualifications from elsewhere. Could be described with 2-3
> /Offer/ descriptions:
>
> 1. An /Offer/ to provide the Credential alone, with specific cost and
> description of eligibility (as discussed previously)
> 2. An /Offer/ to provide the /Course/, with specific cost and
> description of eligibility, plus an /addOn/ /Offer/; which would
> either be a link to /Offer/ 1., or (if costs/criteria are
> different in this case) a link to /Offer/ 3.
> 3. An /Offer/ referenced from Offer 2. as the /addOn/ /Offer/ to
> provide the Credential subsequent to completion of the
> /Course/ offered in /Offer/ 2.
>
> With the above example it would be perfectly possible to describe a
> course/credential combination at a single cost. i.e. Main /Offer
> /describing the combination//cost, linking to//specific/addOn Offer
> /with a zero cost/./
> /
> /
> I don’t believe anyone should be responsible for aggregating these
> costs, but some people/organisations may want to do this at an
> organisational, regional, or global level, and we should provide the
> mechanisms to facilitate that as well as describing the individual
> components fully. The current /Offer/ structure in Schema.org should
> be sufficient to do this.
>
> ~Richard.
>
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> Twitter: @rjw
>
> On 30 January 2018 at 10:28, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk
> <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:
>
> Stuart, you haven't really addressed what I see as the main
> problem. Yes, a college offering a learning opportunity leading to
> a credential can quote various prices for that. However, what
> happens when several colleges offer courses leading to the same
> credential? Here's an example, the SQA HNC/HND in Administrative
> and Information Technology <https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/67670.html>
> has at the bottom of the page a 'Where can you take this course'
> option (aside: confusion between course and qualification is
> endemic) If you enter Edinburgh or Glasgow in to the search box
> you will see a range of providers of courses that lead to that
> credential, none of which are SQA. SQA are a relatively simple
> case, this is from the Pearson page about a similar English
> credential
> <https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/btec-higher-nationals.html>
> "BTEC Higher Nationals are delivered at both universities and
> colleges in 58 countries around the world"
>
> Why should SQA or Edexcel be responsible for aggregating the cost
> of these courses?
>
>
> I would like to step back a little further than you suggest and
> think about the use case before thinking about defining the cost
> and how to express it in schema.org <http://schema.org>. Someone
> aiming for a credential which involves study will know that they
> have to make a series complex financial judgements involving
> tuition fees, living costs, lost income while studying. I don't
> think the aim here is that a third party service should be able
> collate all of the relevant information from disconnected
> providers using schema.org <http://schema.org> to make some sort
> of cost comparison site; what we should be aiming for in meeting
> this use case is that sources provide clear information about the
> relevant component costs that they control so that the person
> searching for options can collate them.
>
> Furthermore, there is a simpler use case of someone who has
> already fulfilled the necessary educational requirements and wants
> to know what it will cost to get these credentialed. (For example
> if they are moving between jurisdictions, or just need an some
> easy way of verifying that they are qualified).
>
> For both of these angles on the use case, I think we should
> clarify the difference between the cost of the course and the
> direct cost of the credential. I don't think either requires that
> a credentialing organization should be involved in aggregating
> costs of courses from other people.
>
> Phil
>
> SQA HNC: https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/67670.htm
> <https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/67670.htm>
> EdExcel BTEC:
> https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/btec-higher-nationals.html
> <https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/btec-higher-nationals.html>
>
>
>
> On 29/01/18 19:11, Stuart Sutton wrote:
>> I'd like for a moment to stick close to finding a definition for
>> cost and look to it's expression in the context of schema.org
>> <http://schema.org> as a next step. I agree, Phil, cost can be
>> "tricky"--in fact, one of the trickiest and most discussed in the
>> context of the CTDL. Just the range of cost types is considerable
>> -- see, for example, the CTDL SKOS vocabulary of cost types at
>> http://purl.org/ctdl/terms/CostType
>> <http://purl.org/ctdl/terms/CostType>. Layer on that any instance
>> of these costs types can be further conditioned on other factors
>> such as the type of person seeking the credential (e.g., see CTDL
>> SKOS audience vocabulary at http://purl.org/ctdl/terms/Audience
>> <http://purl.org/ctdl/terms/Audience>). And, cost can be even
>> further qualified by geographic region in which the credential is
>> offered etc, etc, etc.
>>
>> So, down in the weeds, yes, complex; BUT, even faced with such
>> complexity, I don't know of a single purveyor of a credential
>> that can't (or doesn't) respond in public to the question:
>> "What's the typical cost of this credential?" In fact, that
>> information is frequently available on the website -- look at
>> this page for a culinary arts certificate from a U.S. 2-year
>> community college
>> (https://portal.santarosa.edu/srweb/SR_GainfulEmployment.aspx?MCID=1462
>> <https://portal.santarosa.edu/srweb/SR_GainfulEmployment.aspx?MCID=1462>).
>> Note that the amounts stated are typical and qualified by the
>> caveat of varying times-to-credential.
>>
>> On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Richard Wallis
>> <richard.wallis@dataliberate.com
>> <mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>> wrote:
>>
>> On 29 January 2018 at 15:02, Phil Barker
>> <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>> If you want the cost to include the learning opportunity
>> then I think we will need a new property along the lines
>> of "typical aggregated cost".
>>
>>
>> I think this would not be an advisable route to take.
>>
>> The costs of such learning opportunities should be defined in
>> an /Offer/ by the provider of that opportunity, possibly
>> linked to the EOC via Offer->addOn.
>>
>> As to a “typical aggregated cost” - who would do the
>> aggregating and calculation of what is typical? - a minefield
>> for confusion and out of date data.
>>
>>
>> I agree with Richard that "typical aggregate cost" is confusing
>> in terms of what's in an aggregation and what is not. But,
>> constrained by definition to: (a) tuition and fees where the
>> means of verifying credential competencies is some form of
>> learning opportunity, or (b) costs of assessment where the
>> verification is by stand-alone-assessment is tractable -- and
>> very meaningful in answering: "What's the typical cost of this
>> credential?"
>>
>> Richard, is there any evidence that such a solution --in markup--
>> would be any more subject to out of date data than markup of
>> costs somewhere for a Sony Model X.
>>
>> --Stuart
>>
>>
>> ~Richard.
>>
>>
>> On 27/01/18 14:58, Stuart Sutton wrote:
>>> Phil, I'm a bit uneasy about the scoping and (slightly
>>> about) the definition. In scoping you state:
>>>
>>> /Cost/
>>> /Having found a credential it should be possible to
>>> identify the cost of acquiring the credential./
>>>
>>>
>>> Constraint
>>>
>>> /This is the cost of the credential itself, not the
>>> cost of courses, training or other things required
>>> in order to earn the credential (these costs can be
>>> shown when describing those other things)./
>>>
>>>
>>> People looking for the cost of a credential are seldom
>>> interested in costs pertaining to the mechanics of the
>>> award and very interested in direct costs of attaining
>>> the credential. I think those "other things" you mention
>>> boil down to cost of verification of
>>> competencies attained by: (1) some form of independent
>>> assessment (e.g., my California State Bar exam to earn a
>>> license to practice law), or a learning opportunity
>>> (course (of study), apprenticeship or other form of
>>> verified experience), e.g., my law degrees. So, wouldn't
>>> people looking for a credential they can afford want
>>> some estimated direct costs stemming from any necessary
>>> assessment or learning opportunity. In many/most cases,
>>> the only direct cost of a credential are the costs of
>>> independent assessment and/or learning opportunity.
>>>
>>> I appreciate wanting to slice and dice this so that the
>>> costs attached to a required schema.org/Course
>>> <http://schema.org/Course> (of study) are expressed
>>> there (and should be), and the costs of any independent
>>> assessment (no current schema.org <http://schema.org>
>>> entity) are expressed there (and should be), but someone
>>> searching for a credential they can afford would want to
>>> see the direct costs rolled up.
>>>
>>> Phil, what's meant by "objects" in "Requires: ability to
>>> show relevant cost for educational / occupational
>>> credential objects"?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Phil Barker
>>> <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I want to try and keep some momentum by doing some
>>> of the quick and easy use cases while we discuss the
>>> more difficult ones. I think this is one:
>>>
>>> Cost
>>> Having found a credential it should be possible to
>>> identify the cost of acquiring the credential.
>>>
>>> Requires: ability to show relevant cost for
>>> educational / occupational credential objects
>>> Note: this implies that a credential is offered
>>>
>>> This is the cost of the credential itself, not the
>>> cost of courses, training or other things required
>>> in order to earn the credential (these costs can be
>>> shown when describing those other things).
>>>
>>> schema.org <http://schema.org> has means for
>>> specifying the cost of things with the offers
>>> <http://schema.org/offers> property which we could
>>> use. If EducationalOccupationalCredential is a
>>> CreativeWork, then we already have the offers
>>> property (if it is not, we may need change the
>>> domain of the existing offers property)
>>>
>>> A simple example
>>>
>>> {
>>> "@context": "http://schema.org/" <http://schema.org/>,
>>> "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
>>> "url" :
>>> "https://www.alt.ac.uk/certified-membership"
>>> <https://www.alt.ac.uk/certified-membership>,
>>> "name": "CMALT",
>>> "description": "Certified Membership of the
>>> Association for Learning Technology",
>>> "offers": {
>>> "@type": "Offer",
>>> "name": "Registration fee (UK)",
>>> "price": "150",
>>> "priceCurrency": "GBP"
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>> Offers <http://schema.org/Offer> can get quite
>>> complex, allowing different currencies, different
>>> offers for different regions, add on offers etc. I
>>> think it would cover our needs adequately; the only
>>> potential problem I can see is that
>>> eligibleCustomerType as defined is too restrictive
>>> to provide information like "special price for
>>> military veterans". My approach to this would be to
>>> 1) raise this as an issue with schema.org
>>> <http://schema.org>. 2) provide text values anyway
>>> (schema.org <http://schema.org> allows this)
>>>
>>> Any objections? Have I missed anything?
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>.
>>> http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>>> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to
>>> enhance learning; information systems for education.
>>> CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation
>>> in education technology.
>>>
>>> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private
>>> limited company, number SC569282.
>>> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability
>>> partnership, registered in England number OC399090
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Stuart A. Sutton, Metadata Consultant
>>> Associate Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
>>> Information School
>>> Email: stuartasutton@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:stuartasutton@gmail.com>
>>> Skype: sasutton
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>.
>> http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to
>> enhance learning; information systems for education.
>> CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in
>> education technology.
>>
>> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private
>> limited company, number SC569282.
>> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership,
>> registered in England number OC399090
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Stuart A. Sutton, Metadata Consultant
>> Associate Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
>> Information School
>> Email: stuartasutton@gmail.com <mailto:stuartasutton@gmail.com>
>> Skype: sasutton
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance
> learning; information systems for education.
> CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education
> technology.
>
> PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited
> company, number SC569282.
> CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered
> in England number OC399090
>
>
--
Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance learning;
information systems for education.
CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company,
number SC569282.
CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in
England number OC399090
Received on Tuesday, 30 January 2018 12:03:05 UTC