- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 15:42:05 +0100
- To: public-eocred-schema@w3.org
- Message-ID: <f93ac3d2-9863-025e-3126-c13611aa24cd@pjjk.co.uk>
Thanks Stuart, The sense I got arose from comments from Fritz <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018Apr/0004.html> [1] about accreditation being more important than recognition, and from Nate Otto <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018May/0000.html> [2] about trust and verfiability. I am not sure how widely these concerns are shared or whether my replies [3 <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018May/0001.html>] and [4 <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018Apr/0005.html>] addressed them satisfactorily. If we can clarify those points one way or the other that would be great. Phil 1. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018Apr/0004.html 2. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018May/0000.html 3. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018May/0001.html 4. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018Apr/0005.html On 15/05/18 14:01, Stuart Sutton wrote: > 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 <http://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 > <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 > <mailto: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 <http://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 <http://schema.org> statements. If I >> use schema.org <http://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 >> <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 >> <http://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 <http://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 > > -- 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
Received on Tuesday, 15 May 2018 14:42:32 UTC