- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 11:55:23 +0000
- To: Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com>, Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-eocred-schema@w3.org
- Message-ID: <c96df45a-a8a8-533e-e55e-f9d746ffcb80@pjjk.co.uk>
Thank you all. I have moved the proposed solution out of draft and into
the main wiki space at
https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/Educational_level_of_a_credential
Don't let that stop you making any suggestions that would clarify the
proposal.
Regards, Phil
On 19/02/18 16:21, Alex Jackl wrote:
> +1
>
> Alexander Jackl
> CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc.
> alex@bardicsystems.com <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>
>> Twitter: @rjw
>>
>> On 17 February 2018 at 10:20, Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com
>> <mailto: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/associates
>> <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 <mailto: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
>> <mailto: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
>> <http://www.linkedin.com/in/richardwallis>
>> Twitter: @rjw
>>
>> On 16 February 2018 at 17:39, Nate Otto
>> <nate@ottonomy.net <mailto: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
>> <http://pinballsorcerers.org/levels/2>",
>> "alignmentType": "educationalLevel",
>> "levelNumber": 2
>> },
>> {
>> "educationalFramework":
>> "https://ec.europa.eu/ploteus/content/descriptors-page
>> <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 <mailto:stuartasutton@gmail.com>
> Skype: sasutton
>
>
>
--
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
Received on Tuesday, 20 February 2018 11:56:35 UTC