- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2018 10:28:04 +0000
- To: public-eocred-schema@w3.org
- Message-ID: <2e61625b-d5e5-006b-6a2c-59e59045422b@pjjk.co.uk>
Stuart, you haven't really addressed what I see as the main problem.
Yes, a college offering a learning opportunity leading to a credential
can quote various prices for that. However, what happens when several
colleges offer courses leading to the same credential? Here's an
example, the SQA HNC/HND in Administrative and Information Technology
<https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/67670.html> has at the bottom of the page a
'Where can you take this course' option (aside: confusion between course
and qualification is endemic) If you enter Edinburgh or Glasgow in to
the search box you will see a range of providers of courses that lead to
that credential, none of which are SQA. SQA are a relatively simple
case, this is from the Pearson page about a similar English credential
<https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/btec-higher-nationals.html>
"BTEC Higher Nationals are delivered at both universities and colleges
in 58 countries around the world"
Why should SQA or Edexcel be responsible for aggregating the cost of
these courses?
I would like to step back a little further than you suggest and think
about the use case before thinking about defining the cost and how to
express it in schema.org. Someone aiming for a credential which involves
study will know that they have to make a series complex financial
judgements involving tuition fees, living costs, lost income while
studying. I don't think the aim here is that a third party service
should be able collate all of the relevant information from disconnected
providers using schema.org to make some sort of cost comparison site;
what we should be aiming for in meeting this use case is that sources
provide clear information about the relevant component costs that they
control so that the person searching for options can collate them.
Furthermore, there is a simpler use case of someone who has already
fulfilled the necessary educational requirements and wants to know what
it will cost to get these credentialed. (For example if they are moving
between jurisdictions, or just need an some easy way of verifying that
they are qualified).
For both of these angles on the use case, I think we should clarify the
difference between the cost of the course and the direct cost of the
credential. I don't think either requires that a credentialing
organization should be involved in aggregating costs of courses from
other people.
Phil
SQA HNC: https://www.sqa.org.uk/sqa/67670.htm
EdExcel BTEC:
https://qualifications.pearson.com/en/qualifications/btec-higher-nationals.html
On 29/01/18 19:11, Stuart Sutton wrote:
> 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
> <http://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
> <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
> <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
> <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
> <mailto:richard.wallis@dataliberate.com>> wrote:
>
> On 29 January 2018 at 15:02, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk
> <mailto: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
>> <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
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> 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, 30 January 2018 10:29:08 UTC