Re: EOCred: Identify the level of a credential

+1

Alexander Jackl
CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc.
alex@bardicsystems.com
M: 508.395.2836
O: 401.384.0566
F: 617.812.6020
http://bardicsystems.com

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 7:58 AM, Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
wrote:

> +1 to definition and to keeping DefinedTerm in range.
>
> On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 3:02 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> OK. Does anyone object if I keep DefinedTerm in the expectedRange? (For
>> that matter, does anyone object to dropping it?). Taking a bit of the
>> Dublin Core definition, how about:
>>
>> *Name*: educationalLevel
>>
>> *Definition*: The level in terms of progression through a learning,
>> educational or training context. Examples of educational levels include
>> 'beginner', 'intermediate' or 'advanced', and formal sets of level
>> indicators such as the European Qualifications Framework.
>>
>> *Expected Range*: Text, Url, DefinedTerm
>>
>>
>> I am very much of the opinion that these levels are only meaningful if
>> they come with definitions in the context of a set of levels, hence my
>> desire to keep DefinedTerm in the range. Given the choice of Text and Url I
>> can easily imagine getting values like cryptic values like "NQF4" or
>> meaningless values like "4" when there is no Url for individual terms.
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On 17/02/18 10:51, Richard Wallis wrote:
>>
>> “I think text is good, I’d really like to add URL"
>>
>> That is no problem - it is default in Schema.org to be able to use a URL
>> (if you have one) for the value of any property:
>>
>> *some types such as Role and URL can be used with all properties, and we
>> encourage this kind of experimentation amongst data consumers.
>> <http://schema.org/docs/datamodel.html#conformance>*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Richard Wallis
>> Founder, Data Liberate
>> http://dataliberate.com
>> Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis
>> Twitter: @rjw
>>
>> On 17 February 2018 at 10:20, Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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/ass
>>> ociates
>>> 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
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stuart A. Sutton, Metadata Consultant
> Associate Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
>    Information School
> Email: stuartasutton@gmail.com
> Skype: sasutton
>
>
>