Re: Fwd: Re: EOCred: Credentials and competences

Thanks Stuart,

I have updated the draft proposal 
<https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/User:Philbarker/Draft:Competencies_for_credential> 
to include DefinedTerm in the range of competencyRequired.

I have also added an example of it being used. See the wiki for the full 
example, but the JSON-LD looks like

 1. {
 2. "@context":"http://schema.org",
 3. "@type":"EducationalOccupationalCredential",
 4. "name":"HNC Facilities Management",
 5. "competencyRequired":{
 6. "@type":"DefinedTerm",
 7. "termCode":"ASTFM401",
 8. "name":"Understand facilities management and its place in the
    organisation",
 9. "url":"https://www.ukstandards.org.uk/PublishedNos/ASTFM401.pdf",
10. "inDefinedTermSet":"https://www.ukstandards.org.uk/"
11. }
12. }


How does that look to you all?

Phil


On 12/03/18 12:52, Stuart Sutton wrote:
> Phil, I was agreeing with you that DefinedTerm works in our context 
> since what's needed for EducationalOccupationalCredential is the 
> ability to identify a specific competency node (or array of such 
> nodes) in a specific framework with a competencyRequired property. 
> With my comment about not being 'ideal', I was thinking about a 
> context in which competency frameworks themselves were described on 
> the Web using schema--i.e., the "structured data type 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/index.php?title=User:Philbarker/Draft:Competencies_for_credential>" 
> you mention...a push toward SKOS-land.
>
> On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 5:17 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk 
> <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     OK, now I'm talking to the right forum...
>
>     On 12/03/18 11:38, Phil Barker wrote:
>>     [This was Stuart's reply to the message I sent to the wrong list]
>>
>>
>>     Phil, thanks for pushing forward.
>>
>>     So, in essence, the question is how to handle referencing
>>     competencies from the credential and what's on the other end of
>>     rangeIncludes.
>
>     Yes. Also, there's a question about how much of the work of
>     defining competencies we take on here.
>
>>
>>     As for the property referencing a competency, I hope we do NOT
>>     use the existing educationalLevel / AlignmentObject for the
>>     reasons already discussed on this list. There is a broad
>>     consensus out there that defines competencies as assertions of
>>     knowledge, skills, and abilities--what someone should know,
>>     already knows and/or is able to do. While the pending
>>     schema.org/skills <http://schema.org/skills> property could have
>>     it's definition tweaked as you suggest, Phil, as noted above,
>>     skills are just one kind of competency. So perhaps the tweaking
>>     of the label 'skills' would make the use more inclusive of what
>>     the term means across the talent pipeline--from syllabus learning
>>     outcomes, through credentialing requirements to job postings and
>>     HR functions.
>>
>     Sadly, I suspect that it is too late to change the label that
>     property seems to be moderately well used. I would be happy to be
>     wrong about that, so if anyone thinks I am please let me know.
>
>     I've drafted a proposal for competencyRequired
>     <https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/index.php?title=User:Philbarker/Draft:Competencies_for_credential>,
>     which could live alongside skills, replace skills, or serve as a
>     new definition of skills.
>
>     *Name:*compentencyRequired
>
>     *Definition:*Knowledge, skill, ability or personal attribute that
>     must be demonstrated by a person.
>
>     *Expected Range:*text, url
>
>
>>     Competencies have been the focus of both ad hoc and de facto
>>     standards efforts--i.e., a lot of experts have looked at the
>>     description problem and there is a lot of accord across them. 
>>     The LRMI Task Group started out looking at developing a
>>     schema.org <http://schema.org> proposal for competencies and
>>     decided that the then emergent DefinedTerm proposal (see Category
>>     Code in pending and discussion to change name
>>     <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1775>) would
>>     basically work for this purpose. While the DefinedTerm proposal
>>     isn't ideal, it's a sound base that will likely have broad use.
>>     Perhaps, if useful, it could be subtyped later to provide the few
>>     properties that might optimize it for competencies.
>
>     Agreed. Are you suggesting that we propose DefinedTerm to be in
>     the range expected for competencyRequired (until it gets subtyped
>     into something more specific)? Or that we propose a subtype for
>     CompetencyDefinition here?
>
>     Phil
>
>>
>>     On Wed, Mar 7, 2018 at 7:22 AM, Phil Barker
>>     <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:
>>
>>         Hello again.
>>
>>         We have several use cases relating to the competences that an
>>         educational / occupational credential requires. Does adapting
>>         the skills <http://pending.schema.org/skills> ('skills
>>         required to fulfill this role.') from the JobPosting fulfil
>>         our need?
>>
>>
>>         The use case / requirements we have are
>>
>>           * Individuals should be able to search for and find
>>             credentials that best address competencies they wish to
>>             attain.
>>           * Individuals should be able to search and find credentials
>>             that best match competencies that the individual posses
>>             and wishes to be recognized
>>           * Employers should able to search for and find credentials
>>             that address the competencies required of an employee.
>>           * [having identified a credential] It should be possible to
>>             identify the competencies required in order to obtain a
>>             credential.
>>
>>         Also, knowing the competences required to earn a credential
>>         would help someone find relevant learning resources /
>>         opportunities, i.e. those which had similar competencies as
>>         learning outcomes.
>>
>>
>>         Currently, there is no means in schema.org
>>         <http://schema.org> to describe competencies. There is a lot
>>         of work going on in different forums around the description
>>         of forums, and some of us have ideas for how the proposed
>>         Defined Term type might be extended to describe competences.
>>
>>         We have several choices to make.
>>
>>         Firstly do we use the educationalAlignment / AlignmentObject
>>         for this, or do we create a new property for  'required
>>         Competence'.
>>
>>         For reasons discussed when we were dealling with
>>         educationalLevel, I would prefer not to use the Alignment
>>         Object. We may want to discuss the similarity between the new
>>         property and skills <http://pending.schema.org/skills>
>>         ('skills required to fulfill this role.') from the JobPosting
>>
>>         Secondly, do we try to propose properties for Competency and
>>         CompetencyFramework types here or do we leave this for others
>>         to do and settle for text descriptions or URL links?
>>
>>         Given that Defined Term is not yet in schema, and given the
>>         work going on elsewhere, I am inclined to leave defining
>>         Competency and CompetencyFramework types to later, and to
>>         settle for text descriptions or links.
>>
>>
>>         My inclination would be to modify the existing
>>         schema.org/skills <http://schema.org/skills> property by
>>         tweaking the definition.
>>           skills: the skills and competences required.
>>         and add EducationalOccupationalCredential to its expected domain.
>>
>>         We could also raise an issue about the desirability of a more
>>         formal means of representing competencies.
>>
>>         What do you think?
>>
>>         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, 13 March 2018 17:50:48 UTC