Re: EOCred: Identify the level of a credential

>
> Based on similar experiences in other Schema.org extension areas, when it
> has become complex/difficult to gain consensus on a particular point,
> especially with an initial proposal:
> I suggest that we agree on a property name for this (these) concepts and
> create it with a range of Text and a suitable, not too specific,
> description.
> After some use in the real world, we can then review that usage and come
> up with enhanced propert(ies) definition, range, etc. as part of a further
> following proposal.

At this current stage translating the forgoing discussions in this email
> trail into a concise description, that will be understandable to the
> Schema,org community that will receive, and hopefully accept, our proposals
> seems a challenge too far for this initial release.


I agree with Richard. It may be simplest to use text and see where the data
leads us.

- Vicki

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 12:42 PM, Richard Wallis <
richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:

> Based on similar experiences in other Schema.org extension areas, when it
> has become complex/difficult to gain consensus on a particular point,
> especially with an initial proposal:
>
> I suggest that we agree on a property name for this (these) concepts and
> create it with a range of Text and a suitable, not too specific,
> description.
>
> After some use in the real world, we can then review that usage and come
> up with enhanced propert(ies) definition, range, etc. as part of a further
> following proposal.
>
> At this current stage translating the forgoing discussions in this email
> trail into a concise description, that will be understandable to the
> Schema,org community that will receive, and hopefully accept, our proposals
> seems a challenge too far for this initial release.
>
> ~Richard
>
> Richard Wallis
> Founder, Data Liberate
> http://dataliberate.com
> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
> Twitter: @rjw
>
> On 16 February 2018 at 17:39, Nate Otto <nate@ottonomy.net> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for digging in to get more precise on level here.
>>
>> I like how the SCQF reasons about levels of accomplishment. A Credential
>> can recognize a level of accomplishment, a level of performance, or both. A
>> Course could be "at" a level of accomplishment in terms of difficulty or
>> prerequisite knowledge & skills. These are good use cases to target, and if
>> I think of "educationalLevel", this would be the sense of level that would
>> fit best, versus "level of performance", even though it would be possible
>> to split hairs further between the two categories I started with, which we
>> could abbreviate to "accomplishment level recognized" and "accomplishment
>> level required".
>>
>> This vocabulary's ability to describe level of accomplishment should be
>> distinct from trying to talk about level of performance and not use the
>> same property, in my opinion.
>>
>> Fritz,
>> I'm a little wary of "A string, term or URL". That's amazingly broad to
>> the point where it would likely make it very difficult to serve the
>> comparison use cases.
>>
>> What feels important to me about understanding the level of
>> accomplishment of a credential is its position relative to other
>> credentials, learning opportunities, etc. I am not confident I get that
>> across a range of credentials unless they all use specific URLs pointing to
>> level definitions like the ones from the SCQF.
>>
>> On one hand, one string property is nice and simple, on the other hand,
>> it doesn't serve comparison use cases well unless all the credentials you'd
>> like to compare use a very specific scheme established outside the scope of
>> this vocabulary known to the consumer.
>>
>> Maybe I changed my mind on using alignment, particularly because
>> AlignmentObject already has the "alignmentType" property, which includes
>> "educationalLevel" as an option. We could suggest something like this,
>> adding a numerical levelNumber property and using a URL either for
>> educationalFramework or targetUrl (a little wary of targetUrl because I
>> would think that should represent a URL of the exact level that alignment
>> is desired for, but maybe somebody can ease my mind on this point)
>>
>> {
>> "@context": "http://schema.org",
>> "@type": "Credential",
>> "alignment": [{
>> "educationalFramework": "http://pinballsorcerers.org/levels/2",
>> "alignmentType": "educationalLevel",
>> "levelNumber": 2
>> },
>> {
>> "educationalFramework": "https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/
>> content/descriptors-page",
>> "alignmentType": "educationalLevel",
>> "levelNumber": 7
>> }
>> ]
>> }
>>
>> It does seems like we're not going to be able to model this nearly as
>> well to serve comparison use cases with a bare text string. Only human
>> eyeballs could make sense of the difference between
>>
>> "educationalLevel": "Pinball Wizard Level 1: Nub" and "educationalLevel":
>> "Pinball Wizard Level 6: Ultimate Extra Baller"
>>
>> Nate
>>
>>
>