Re: EOCred: name search for credentialing organization

I think this is being considered to some extent, but the directionality and
provinence of relations (xxxxxxxBy) can be very important for some
relations when considering first/second party relationships.

As an example, an Organization can approve a credential, but it can be
dangerous to allow a Credential to state who it is approved by.

This would permit me to create a credential and add in that credential
"accreditedBy -> State Board, Country Board, etc" without it necessarily
being true.

This could be solved through verifiable claims, but taking a moment to
think about preventing first party/second party abuse will probably reap
rewards down the road.

It also permits us to potentially remove extreneous fields. offeredBy is
also covered by Organization's makesOffer.

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 7:40 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:

> Thanks Vicki, that helps.
>
> The CTDL <http://credreg.net/ctdl/terms> has a number of relationships
> between credentials and organizations that may be relevant (accreditedBy,
> approvedBy, offeredBy, ownedBy, recognizedBy, renewedBy, revokedBy). I
> guess it is worth asking now what is the minimum number needed for our use
> cases for EOCredentials in schema.org
>
> My expectation is that offeredBy, accreditedBy and recognizedBy would be
> enough. The latter two relate to our use case about quality assurance
> <https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/Use_Cases#Quality_assurance>.
> I think they would also provide information about who stands behind a
> credential.
>
> Phil
>
> On 28/03/18 13:37, Vicki Tardif wrote:
>
> Phil,
>
> Fair enough. Mostly I am concerned about making it clear to readers and
> writers who stands behind the Credential and who took the money. With the
> proper descriptions, etc, we can probably make that clear with "offeredBy"
> in both cases.
>
> - Vicki
>
>
> On Tue, Mar 27, 2018 at 4:45 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Vicki, I am not sure about that example. It looks to me like a learning
>> opportunity (the Courses) that is created by Google, offeredBy Coursera,
>> leading to a Credential that is offeredBy Google (or maybe Coursera, it's
>> not clear to me what Google's role is because the learning opportunity and
>> the credential aren't described separately).
>>
>> Generally, it seems common for terms like Degree and Certificate and even
>> Qualification to be used for the learning opportunity as well as the EO
>> Credential they lead to. The page Vicki links to uses the terms Certificate
>> and Program interchangeably "This program is designed..." "This six-course
>> certificate...". The SQA example I use does similar. It may be a bit late
>> to ask this, but am I out of step in thinking the distinction is important?
>> (for modelling in schema.org, not for colloquial use).
>>
>> Phil
>>
>> On 26/03/18 19:44, Vicki Tardif wrote:
>>
>> In my mind, the difference is captured in the example at
>> https://www.coursera.org/specializations/google-it-support
>>
>> As I understand it, the credential is issuedBy (whether future or past
>> tense) Google, but is offeredBy Coursera. In other words, it is a Google
>> certification, but the student pays Coursera.
>>
>> - Vicki
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 1:29 PM, Hugh Paterson III <
>> sil.linguist@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> issuedBy vs. offeredBy
>>> The terms themselves indicate a semantics to me that seems to indicate
>>> that the issuedBy property appears on a credential already earned or
>>> awarded, whereas offering is what is currently offered by a granting
>>> institution. The University of Nottingham may stop offering a Ph.D in
>>> Electrical Engineering. Earners of Ph.D's  have an issuedby property, where
>>> as an aggregation of current offerings of Ph.Ds in Electrical Engineering
>>> would not include The University of Nottingham.
>>>
>>> Am I missing the point of the question at hand?
>>> - Hugh
>>>
>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 8:44 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I think it depends on whether the distinction between offering and
>>>> issuing is going to be important.
>>>>
>>>> For example a credential might be offered by several organizations and
>>>> it might be important to know which of those had issued a specific
>>>> instance. That's a bit hypothetical, I have no strong feel for how often
>>>> such a distinction would matter in practice (or even if it really happens).
>>>>
>>>> issuedBy also has the merit of being simpler, more direct.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> On 26/03/18 16:29, Vicki Tardif wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I think using "offers" works for the use case of understanding which
>>>> organizations offer a particular credential, but does this work as well for
>>>> the eventual use case of "Person X earned Credential Y from Organization
>>>> Z"?
>>>>
>>>> If "issuedBy" works better for the latter, maybe we should also use it
>>>> for this use case.
>>>>
>>>> - Vicki
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 9:04 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Looking through the use cases
>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/Use_Cases#Name_search_for_credentialing_organization>
>>>>> for Educational Occupational Credentials in schema.org, I see we have
>>>>> one for
>>>>>
>>>>> Name search for credentialing organization
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be possible to search and find credentials by the name of
>>>>> the credentialing organization.
>>>>> *Requires:* ability to show relationship between educational /
>>>>> occupational credential objects and descriptions or representations of
>>>>> credentialling organization
>>>>>
>>>>> Also,
>>>>>
>>>>> Find credentialing organization[edit
>>>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/index.php?title=Use_Cases&action=edit&section=26>
>>>>> ]
>>>>>
>>>>> Having identified a credential, it should be possible to find the
>>>>> credentialing organization.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we have already solved these back when we discussed cost of a
>>>>> credential. We solved this in part by use of the the schema.org
>>>>> offers property and Offer type. As I think Richard pointed out at the time,
>>>>> the Offer type has a property 'offeredBy' so we can say:
>>>>>
>>>>> {
>>>>>   "@context": "http://schema.org/" <http://schema.org/>,
>>>>>   "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
>>>>>   "url" : "https://example.org/ecocred" <https://example.org/ecocred>,
>>>>>   "name": "Example",
>>>>>   "offers": {
>>>>>     "@type": "Offer",
>>>>>     "offeredBy" : {
>>>>>       "@type": "Organization",
>>>>>       "name": "Example org",
>>>>>       "url": "https://example.org/" <https://example.org/>
>>>>>     }
>>>>>   }
>>>>> }
>>>>>
>>>>> The Example credential is offered by Example.org.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone think this is not sufficient to meet the use case?
>>>>>
>>>>> An alternative is to co-opt the issuedBy <http://schema.org/issuedBy>
>>>>> property from Permit <http://schema.org/Permit>. But one important
>>>>> aspect of our work here is that we are dealing *primarily* with the
>>>>> offer of a Credential, not a claim that someone has earned one. That is,
>>>>> BadgeClass rather than Assertions if you appreciate a parallel with Open
>>>>> Badges. So offeredBy seems the better fit to me.
>>>>> There is a note in the use cases that "there may be several different
>>>>> significant types of relationship between credentials and organizations".
>>>>> We have a separate use case for quality assurance that would cover
>>>>> accreditation, recognition etc., of the credentialing organization and
>>>>> which we can discuss later.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards, 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
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> --
>
> 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
>