Re: EOCred: recognition of credential

OK, I am getting the sense that there isn't a particularly strong 
consensus around how to deal with this issue, so I shall park it for 
now. We can reconsider parked issues when we review the proposal we put 
forward to schema.org.

Phil


On 03/05/18 11:01, Phil Barker wrote:
>
> Thanks Nate, that's interesting about 'endorsements' being claims that 
> could be verified. I agree that in many use case it will important to 
> provide evidence or proof of authority for statements like 'This 
> EOCredential is recognised by X'. (By the way one potential point of 
> confusion if a driving licence is a credential: in the UK an 
> endorsement <https://www.gov.uk/penalty-points-endorsements> on a 
> driving licence indicates the driver has been penalized for some 
> infringement. Get enough endorsements and you'll be disqualified from 
> driving.)
>
> As a matter of fact I think this issue of verifiability is pertains to 
> many schema.org statements. If I use schema.org to say that I work for 
> PJJK Limited, would you believe me? Or that my name is Phil Barker? Or 
> that I wrote a certain scientific paper, and that I hold the copyright 
> for it? So I would say that schema.org properties like worksFor 
> <http://schema.org/worksFor>, name <http://schema.org/name>, author 
> <http://schema.org/author>, and in fact pretty much every schema.org 
> property, could be treated as relating to a claim that requires 
> verification for some use-cases. So I think that a mechanism for 
> verifiable claims made as statements using schema.org should be a 
> general one that works across all properties (have a look at how Role 
> <http://schema.org/Role> provides more information about a 
> relationship or property for one way of addressing a similar problem).
>
> I agree that providing a mechanism for verifying claims made on the 
> web is an important thing to do, and I agree that it would be useful 
> to do this for claims encoded in schema.org, but (as you know) it is a 
> general (and difficult) problem.
>
> I don't think it is the problem we are trying to solve with schema.org 
> /here/.
>
> I would state our use case as this:
>
>     A website / email / other text includes the [unverified] statement
>     that an educational occupational credential is recognized by some
>     relevant organization. We wish to make that statement more easily
>     processed by computers through semantic markup.
>
> Extension of use case:
>
>     The same mark up may be used to provide similar information as
>     structured data independently of text on a web page or other medium.
>
> Does that seem like a reasonable use case to address? Is it useful to 
> make unverified claims about recognition of credentials machine readable?
>
> If so, is there any improvement to the definition of the recognizedBy 
> property that would help clarify that the claim to recognition may 
> require further verification?
>
> Regards, Phil
>
> On 02/05/18 21:14, Nate Otto wrote:
>> For some extra context/flavor:
>>
>> In Open Badges, we use the W3C Verifiable Credentials 
>> vocab/methodology to enable 3rd parties to create Endorsements that 
>> describe their recognition of a particular defined Credential. This 
>> is still early days, but in the current version of the OB vocabulary, 
>> there is a property that allows publishers to identify the 
>> "endorsements" that have been awarded to the Credential (or to the 
>> Issuer, or to the awarded instance of the credential).
>>
>> Because each endorsement is separately verifiable, the publisher's 
>> word doesn't need to be trusted when they describe 
>> organizations/individuals who recognize the badge. This means that 
>> the relationship is actually between the (Credential -> Endorsement 
>> -> Issuer of the Endorsement), not directly (Credential -> Issuer of 
>> the Endorsement)
>>
>> If we add in a recognizedBy feature in the vocabulary, it might be 
>> useful to define use cases for how this data is published (who is 
>> publishing it, where, and for what audience?) and when/why that 
>> published data should be trusted by consumers. This might yield 
>> additional properties we might need in order to support those use 
>> cases, or we might want to go the Open Badges route of modeling the 
>> Endorsement of the credential itself as an intermediate relationship.
>>
>> Nate
>>
>>
>
> -- 
>
> 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 <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: 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 <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: 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