Re: EOCred: cost of a credential

Thank you all. I have moved the discussion page 
<https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/Costs_for_educational_/_occupational_credential> 
on the wiki out of my drafting space and into the main wiki. I have 
added JSON-LD examples for a couple of the more complex cases discussed. 
They should validate as much as can be expected in Google's structured 
data testing tool 
<https://search.google.com/structured-data/testing-tool> and the 
serialization it produces is quite interesting. I hope the extra 
examples haven't just made the discussion more complex. I thought it 
useful to show how the vocabulary could be used to handle the use cases 
that had been discussed, even though there are many choices in there 
that would depend on implementation issues.

Phil


On 11/02/18 20:48, Nate Otto wrote:

> +1 to using Offer and trying to stick pretty close to its prototypical 
> usage. +1 to keeping our recommendation as simple as possible here, 
> even if we can't handle every use case.
>
> >From my team's experience, the most compelling use cases are ones 
> where there are clear direct costs associate with the credential. That 
> applies to a credential where you pay for the assessment and to 
> credentials awarded as part of a course with direct costs.
>
> I like the idea of investigating AggregateOffer, though we may find 
> our desire to present "An estimated total of direct and typical 
> indirect costs of obtaining a credential.
>
> There are two different ways implementation of cost could fail to 
> produce a useful ecosystem. (a) implementation doesn't cover enough % 
> of the credentials in a market niche to give users enough data to 
> meaningfully compare credentials, which could be exacerbated if we 
> target too narrow a slice of use cases. Or, (b), we achieve enough 
> implementation to compare by including less specific data and/or more 
> complicated/varied data structures to describe a broad range of 
> estimated costs that might potentially be related to the credential 
> ("The estimated February 2018 cost of 20 gallons of gasoline for 
> commuting to class") that it's impossible to get any useful comparison 
> between credentials.
> I think think (a) is inevitable: most credentials won't have published 
> prices - Issuers can serve their use cases without defining that 
> property themselves most of the time. So we'll have to build our 
> ecosystem to focus more on usable offer data when it exists versus 
> meaningful comparison of rough costs between credentials, I think. And 
> I would be excited about focusing on this direction, because the use 
> cases it enables action on produce a much more meaningful action "I 
> know how to access this offer" versus the rough comparison use cases 
> "I now have a little bit more information to help me choose between 
> potential credentials I might pursue".
>
> *Nate Otto*
> *Director, Open Badges, Concentric Sky*
> concentricsky.com <http://concentricsky.com>
> he/him/his

-- 

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