Re: EOCred: show other requirements

 From the conversation so far, I am still of the opinion that we ought 
to put 'other requirements' on the back burner pending a better 
understanding of what 'other' means. It was probably a bad idea to 
define something in terms of what other things aren't.

I'ld like to pick up some of Hugh and Nate's points:

On 20/03/18 18:12, Nate Otto wrote:
>
> We have found based on 4 or so years investigating the idea of 
> "learning pathways" that is it probably an ineffective idea to model a 
> pathway out of credentials themselves. It is better to make a map of 
> learning objectives (like competencies, program completion 
> requirements, etc), and show how that map relates to credentials 
> versus trying to put credentials in a line, because that is not how 
> most educational applications of the pathways idea work.
OK, that's interesting in terms of several use cases 
<https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/Use_Cases> around 
transfer value, e.g. recognizing current credentials, which lead to 
requirements such as "ability to show relationship between different 
educational / occupational credential objects". I noted from the start 
that these relationships may be complex. In modelling courses and 
programmes of study in various UK HE initiatives we have found 
complexities that outweigh the value.

> I recommend taking a light touch on the side of "requirements" for 
> EOCRED, because of the risk of developing vocabulary that prescribes 
> going down a direction that is different from what a number of 
> implementers in the credentials space have expressed interest in doing.

I agree with Nate that thorough modelling of pathways through 
credentials using schema.org would be difficult, premature and maybe wrong.

I don't know whether or not it would be useful to be able to mark up 
things like credit transfer value / prior standing and prerequisite 
credentials.

>
> Yes, we should use validFor, but only for relative dates from award to 
> expiration of a credential award.
OK

> There should be a separate "expires" property for awarded credentials 
> showing a specific expiration date.(there are already "expires" terms 
> in use in almost every credentials vocabulary, like Open Badges and 
> Verifiable Credentials). I recommend to use the term "expires" to
That relates to the credential held by an individual rather than the 
credential as offered. I would like to focus on credentials as offered 
here. As you say, credentials held by individuals are dealt with elsewhere.

> It would be useful to sync with appropriate terms validFor and 
> issuedBy from http://schema.org/Permit
Agreed

>   * +1 to the idea of modeling the expected time commitment to
>     complete the criteria of a credential. This would be important to
>     be machine readable and consistently implemented across
>     implementations more than many of the other properties we've
>     talked about.
>
We can already describe the time taken to complete a course that awards 
a credential.

As a CreativeWork, a EducationalOccupationCredential would have a 
typicalLearningTime of its own, useful in cases of EOCreds not awarded 
as the result of Courses.

I would be wary about going beyond that, because the time taken to get 
to an end point depends on where you start. It's often said in the UK 
that it takes 7 (or 8) years to qualify as an architect 
<http://www.studentworldonline.com/article/3-steps-to-become-an-architect-in-the-uk/462/>, 
but that comprises the time taken for a Bachelors Degree (3 years in 
England, 4 in Scotland), then a years work experience, then a Post 
Graduate Diploma (2 years), then another years work experience before 
the final exam. It also assumes that you have the pre-requisites for the 
Bachelors degree. So, how to say it takes seven years without modelling 
that pathway?

Phil

> *Nate Otto*
> *Director, Open Badges, Concentric Sky*
> concentricsky.com <http://concentricsky.com>
> he/him/his
>

-- 

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