Re: EOCred: cost of a credential

I'd like for a moment to stick close to finding a definition for cost and
look to it's expression in the context of schema.org as a next step. I
agree, Phil, cost can be "tricky"--in fact, one of the trickiest and most
discussed in the context of the CTDL. Just the range of cost types is
considerable -- see, for example, the CTDL SKOS vocabulary of cost types at
http://purl.org/ctdl/terms/CostType. Layer on that any instance of these
costs types can be further conditioned on other factors such as the type of
person seeking the credential (e.g., see CTDL SKOS audience vocabulary at
http://purl.org/ctdl/terms/Audience). And, cost can be even further
qualified by geographic region in which the credential is offered etc, etc,
etc.

So, down in the weeds, yes, complex; BUT, even faced with such complexity,
I don't know of a single purveyor of a  credential that can't (or doesn't)
respond in public to the question: "What's the typical cost of this
credential?" In fact, that information is frequently available on the
website -- look at this page for a culinary arts certificate from a U.S.
2-year community college (https://portal.santarosa.edu/
srweb/SR_GainfulEmployment.aspx?MCID=1462). Note that the amounts stated
are typical and qualified by the caveat of varying times-to-credential.

On Mon, Jan 29, 2018 at 7:20 AM, Richard Wallis <
richard.wallis@dataliberate.com> wrote:

> On 29 January 2018 at 15:02, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>> 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".
>>
>
> I think this would not be an advisable route to take.
>
> The costs of such learning opportunities should be defined in an *Offer*
> by the provider of that opportunity, possibly linked to the EOC via
> Offer->addOn.
>
> As to a “typical aggregated cost” - who would do the aggregating and
> calculation of what is typical? - a minefield for confusion and out of date
> data.
>

I agree with Richard that "typical aggregate cost" is confusing in terms of
what's in an aggregation and what is not. But, constrained by definition
to: (a) tuition and fees where the means of verifying credential
competencies is some form of learning opportunity, or (b) costs of
assessment where the verification is by stand-alone-assessment is tractable
-- and very meaningful in answering: "What's the typical cost of this
credential?"

Richard, is there any evidence that such a solution --in markup-- would be
any more subject to out of date data than markup of costs somewhere for a
Sony Model X.

--Stuart


>
> ~Richard.
>
>
>>
>> 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 (of study) are expressed there (and should
>> be), and the costs of any independent assessment (no current 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>
>> 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 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. 2) provide text values anyway (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
>> 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
>>
>
>


-- 
Stuart A. Sutton, Metadata Consultant
Associate Professor Emeritus, University of Washington
   Information School
Email: stuartasutton@gmail.com
Skype: sasutton