- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2018 15:02:17 +0000
- To: Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
- Cc: public-eocred-schema@w3.org
- Message-ID: <250544b6-5fad-d79f-4a08-6eaffef4c329@pjjk.co.uk>
Thanks Stuart, I can see your point, and this is tricky.
The problem I have with rolling-up the cost of associated courses is
that there may be different courses that lead to the same qualification,
maybe offered by different providers at different costs (this is common
in the UK). 'Credit transfer'/'Advanced standing' allowing direct entry
into second or third year of degree programs (courses of study) will
also be a factor in the cost of the course necessary, and we have a use
case for 'onward transfer value' which I think reflects this. I think
the most important point is that the Offer of the Course may not be made
by the same organization making the Offer of the Credential.
Where assessment is a integral part of the award of the credential, then
I can see it might be easier to include in the cost of the credential.
In fact, for the example I used the cost does include the assessment. I
am sure there are exceptions, but in many cases I think assessments
could be rolled into the 'direct costs' of the credential; in most other
cases I think the assessments would be considered a part of the course
(or at least the cost of the assessment would be included in the cost of
the course, which is what matters here).
Would it be fair to say *in general* that the assessments for
credentials are more likely to be standardized, whereas the learning
opportunities that lead to them are quite often variable?
Would a reasonable compromise be to note that we are talking about the
direct costs of the credential, and we assume these
a) should normally include any associated assessment that is required
but not provided as part of a learning opportunity leading to the
credential; where this is not the case the addOn
<http://schema.org/addOn> property of the Offer can be used to indicate
the extra cost of the assessment
b) should normally be separate from the cost of the learning
opportunity; where there is a closely associated course offered by the
same organization it may appropriate to use the addOn property to link
to this. Where a course is normally required in order to gain a
credential, but this course is not offered by the same organization,
then [whatever solution we come up with for the use case we have about
eligibility requirements] should be used.
Where the cost of the learning opportunity is the major factor, I
suspect that people will be searching for learning opportunities that
lead to the credential, not for the credential itself.
Is my thinking heading in a helpful direction?
If you want the cost to include the learning opportunity then I think we
will need a new property along the lines of "typical aggregated cost".
By 'objects' in the use cases I intended mean instances of the
EducationalOccupationalCredential type. I think I slipped towards the
end of the page into using it for Educational / Occupational Credentials
in the real world. I'll fix that. Perhaps I should have used resource.
Phil
[note to self, never mention 'quick and easy use cases' ever again.]
On 27/01/18 14:58, Stuart Sutton wrote:
> Phil, I'm a bit uneasy about the scoping and (slightly about) the
> definition. In scoping you state:
>
> /Cost/
> /Having found a credential it should be possible to identify the
> cost of acquiring the credential./
>
>
> Constraint
>
> /This is the cost of the credential itself, not the cost of
> courses, training or other things required in order to earn the
> credential (these costs can be shown when describing those other
> things)./
>
>
> People looking for the cost of a credential are seldom interested in
> costs pertaining to the mechanics of the award and very interested in
> direct costs of attaining the credential. I think those "other things"
> you mention boil down to cost of verification of competencies attained
> by: (1) some form of independent assessment (e.g., my California State
> Bar exam to earn a license to practice law), or a learning opportunity
> (course (of study), apprenticeship or other form of verified
> experience), e.g., my law degrees. So, wouldn't people looking for a
> credential they can afford want some estimated direct costs stemming
> from any necessary assessment or learning opportunity. In many/most
> cases, the only direct cost of a credential are the costs of
> independent assessment and/or learning opportunity.
>
> I appreciate wanting to slice and dice this so that the costs attached
> to a required schema.org/Course <http://schema.org/Course> (of study)
> are expressed there (and should be), and the costs of any independent
> assessment (no current schema.org <http://schema.org> entity) are
> expressed there (and should be), but someone searching for a
> credential they can afford would want to see the direct costs rolled up.
>
> Phil, what's meant by "objects" in "Requires: ability to show relevant
> cost for educational / occupational credential objects"?
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 26, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk
> <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:
>
> I want to try and keep some momentum by doing some of the quick
> and easy use cases while we discuss the more difficult ones. I
> think this is one:
>
> Cost
> Having found a credential it should be possible to identify the
> cost of acquiring the credential.
>
> Requires: ability to show relevant cost for educational /
> occupational credential objects
> Note: this implies that a credential is offered
>
> This is the cost of the credential itself, not the cost of
> courses, training or other things required in order to earn the
> credential (these costs can be shown when describing those other
> things).
>
> schema.org <http://schema.org> has means for specifying the cost
> of things with the offers <http://schema.org/offers> property
> which we could use. If EducationalOccupationalCredential is a
> CreativeWork, then we already have the offers property (if it is
> not, we may need change the domain of the existing offers property)
>
> A simple example
>
> {
> "@context": "http://schema.org/" <http://schema.org/>,
> "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
> "url" : "https://www.alt.ac.uk/certified-membership"
> <https://www.alt.ac.uk/certified-membership>,
> "name": "CMALT",
> "description": "Certified Membership of the Association for
> Learning Technology",
> "offers": {
> "@type": "Offer",
> "name": "Registration fee (UK)",
> "price": "150",
> "priceCurrency": "GBP"
> }
> }
>
> Offers <http://schema.org/Offer> can get quite complex, allowing
> different currencies, different offers for different regions, add
> on offers etc. I think it would cover our needs adequately; the
> only potential problem I can see is that eligibleCustomerType as
> defined is too restrictive to provide information like "special
> price for military veterans". My approach to this would be to 1)
> raise this as an issue with schema.org <http://schema.org>. 2)
> provide text values anyway (schema.org <http://schema.org> allows
> this)
>
> Any objections? Have I missed anything?
>
> Phil
>
> --
>
> 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 Monday, 29 January 2018 15:02:42 UTC