Re: EOCred: Identify the level of a credential

Phil,

Your understanding continues to make sense to me. I didn't realize the
credentials for each level of award were nationalized... I don't believe
that changes anything.

Nate,

I could imagine educationLevels being described as:

"Masters"
"SPQF Level 5"
Taxon/DefinedTerm/reserved URL such as http://ed.gov/degreeLevels/associates
by URLs to documents.
<https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/associate.doc>

That's primarily why I chose a set of things that broad. I'd agree it
doesn't serve the use cases, but there are a lot of cases where these
levels are defined in documents, so text strings is about all we're going
to get.

I assume that at some point the web of data people will win and all these word
documents
<https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/edlite-structure-us.html>
and pdfs
<http://scqf.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/SCQF-Level-Descriptors-WEB-Aug-2015.pdf>that
describe levels will have corresponding URLs for each level.

Richard et al,

I think text is good, I'd really like to add URL in order to represent
taxons and links to descriptions of levels out on the web (so we're at
least somewhat as capable as AlignmentObject.)

Other than that, I'm happy with where the conversation has ended up.

On Fri, Feb 16, 2018 at 10:33 AM, Vicki Tardif <vtardif@google.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.
>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>