Re: EOCred: name search for credentialing organization

Verifying claims is a separate problem crossing all domains and is an
incredibly hard problem. Reusing a particular property does not make lying
any harder, so in terms of schema design, I am more concerned with everyone
understanding how to read/write the data.

- Vicki


On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:04 PM, Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>
>