Re: EOCred: recognition of credential

Phil, I am not so certain that there isn't consensus around the original
proposal for a recognizedBy property with a domain of
EducationalOccupationalCredential
and a range of Organization [1]. Just because there is a likelihood that
such claims by the owner of a credential might well need to be verified for
maximum ease and utility, that doesn't negate the need for a credential
provider to be able to make the claim. And, as you rightly note, a new
recognizedBy
property would be only one of many claims made through other schema.org
properties that could benefit from being verifiable. So while agreeing that
there needs to be a more general mechanism for handling verifiable claims,
first, we need to be able to make such claims and second, its an issue to
be solved beyond this property.

Since I have heard nothing in opposition to a recognizedBy property itself,
I'd say you should, at least for now, call going once, going twice,
included. We can always revisit as the full package of properties for a
useful EducationalOccupationalCredential comes into view.

[1] https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/Show_organizations_that_
recognize_an_educational_occupational_credential

On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:

> OK, I am getting the sense that there isn't a particularly strong
> consensus around how to deal with this issue, so I shall park it for now.
> We can reconsider parked issues when we review the proposal we put forward
> to schema.org.
>
> Phil
>
> On 03/05/18 11:01, Phil Barker wrote:
>
> Thanks Nate, that's interesting about 'endorsements' being claims that
> could be verified. I agree that in many use case it will important to
> provide evidence or proof of authority for statements like 'This
> EOCredential is recognised by X'. (By the way one potential point of
> confusion if a driving licence is a credential: in the UK an endorsement
> <https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements> on a driving licence
> indicates the driver has been penalized for some infringement. Get enough
> endorsements and you'll be disqualified from driving.)
>
> As a matter of fact I think this issue of verifiability is pertains to
> many schema.org statements. If I use schema.org to say that I work for
> PJJK Limited, would you believe me? Or that my name is Phil Barker? Or that
> I wrote a certain scientific paper, and that I hold the copyright for it?
> So I would say that schema.org properties like worksFor
> <http://schema.org/worksFor>, name <http://schema.org/name>, author
> <http://schema.org/author>, and in fact pretty much every schema.org
> property, could be treated as relating to a claim that requires
> verification for some use-cases. So I think that a mechanism for verifiable
> claims made as statements using schema.org should be a general one that
> works across all properties (have a look at how Role
> <http://schema.org/Role> provides more information about a relationship
> or property for one way of addressing a similar problem).
>
> I agree that providing a mechanism for verifying claims made on the web is
> an important thing to do, and I agree that it would be useful to do this
> for claims encoded in schema.org, but (as you know) it is a general (and
> difficult) problem.
>
> I don't think it is the problem we are trying to solve with schema.org
> *here*.
>
> I would state our use case as this:
>
> A website / email / other text includes the [unverified] statement that an
> educational occupational credential is recognized by some relevant
> organization. We wish to make that statement more easily processed by
> computers through semantic markup.
>
> Extension of use case:
>
> The same mark up may be used to provide similar information as structured
> data independently of text on a web page or other medium.
>
> Does that seem like a reasonable use case to address? Is it useful to make
> unverified claims about recognition of credentials machine readable?
>
> If so, is there any improvement to the definition of the recognizedBy
> property that would help clarify that the claim to recognition may require
> further verification?
> Regards, Phil
>
> On 02/05/18 21:14, Nate Otto wrote:
>
> For some extra context/flavor:
>
> In Open Badges, we use the W3C Verifiable Credentials vocab/methodology to
> enable 3rd parties to create Endorsements that describe their recognition
> of a particular defined Credential. This is still early days, but in the
> current version of the OB vocabulary, there is a property that allows
> publishers to identify the "endorsements" that have been awarded to the
> Credential (or to the Issuer, or to the awarded instance of the
> credential).
>
> Because each endorsement is separately verifiable, the publisher's word
> doesn't need to be trusted when they describe organizations/individuals who
> recognize the badge. This means that the relationship is actually between
> the (Credential -> Endorsement -> Issuer of the Endorsement), not directly
> (Credential -> Issuer of the Endorsement)
>
> If we add in a recognizedBy feature in the vocabulary, it might be useful
> to define use cases for how this data is published (who is publishing it,
> where, and for what audience?) and when/why that published data should be
> trusted by consumers. This might yield additional properties we might need
> in order to support those use cases, or we might want to go the Open Badges
> route of modeling the Endorsement of the credential itself as an
> intermediate relationship.
>
> Nate
>
>
>
> --
>
> 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 <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: 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 <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: 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
>