Re: EOCred: recognition of credential

https://github.com/w3c/verifiable-claims

- https://www.w3.org/TR/verifiable-claims-use-cases/
- https://www.w3.org/TR/verifiable-claims-data-model/

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018, Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree that the perceived currency depends, but my main gripe was that
> accreditation is more than a better recognition, it carries with it a
> network effect that recognition doesn't. They are functionally different.
> In my mind, Recognition states that my organization accepts this,
> Accreditation states that those who recognize my organization (must? have
> agreed to?) accept this.
>
> We can proceed at this point with recognizedBy until there's further
> consensus on the mechanics.
>
> On trust and verifiability, I don't have much to say that isn't already
> being covered by Verifiable Claims, JSON Web Signatures and
> http://schema.org/EndorseAction.
>
>
>
> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 8:25 AM Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hmmm. I didn't read either Fritz or Nate's comments as being negative in
>> terms of recognizedBy. Nate and Fritz, what do you say? Can we proceed
>> at this point with recognizedBy? Fritz in your comments you agreed with a
>> subproperty relationship between recognizedBy and a possible future
>> accreditedBy. The currency one places in these two related notions is
>> relative. While accreditation is certainly important, there are some (like
>> one employer) who might well see a credential recognizedBy another employer
>> of note as more important than accreditation. So, like so many thing,
>> perceived currency depends.
>>
>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 7:42 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Thanks Stuart,
>>>
>>> The sense I got arose from comments from Fritz
>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018Apr/0004.html>
>>> [1] about accreditation being more important than recognition, and from Nate
>>> Otto
>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018May/0000.html>
>>> [2] about trust and verfiability.  I am not sure how widely these concerns
>>> are shared or whether my replies [3
>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018May/0001.html>]
>>> and [4
>>> <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/2018Apr/0005.html>]
>>> addressed them satisfactorily.
>>> If we can clarify those points one way or the other that would be great.
>>>
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> 1. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/
>>> 2018Apr/0004.html
>>> 2. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/
>>> 2018May/0000.html
>>> 3. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/
>>> 2018May/0001.html
>>> 4. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/
>>> 2018Apr/0005.html
>>>
>>>
>>> On 15/05/18 14:01, Stuart Sutton wrote:
>>>
>>> Phil, I am not so certain that there isn't consensus around the original
>>> proposal for a recognizedBy property with a domain of
>>> EducationalOccupationalCredential and a range of Organization [1]. Just
>>> because there is a likelihood that such claims by the owner of a credential
>>> might well need to be verified for maximum ease and utility, that doesn't
>>> negate the need for a credential provider to be able to make the claim.
>>> And, as you rightly note, a new recognizedBy property would be only one
>>> of many claims made through other schema.org properties that could
>>> benefit from being verifiable. So while agreeing that there needs to be a
>>> more general mechanism for handling verifiable claims, first, we need to be
>>> able to make such claims and second, its an issue to be solved beyond this
>>> property.
>>>
>>> Since I have heard nothing in opposition to a recognizedBy property
>>> itself, I'd say you should, at least for now, call going once, going twice,
>>> included. We can always revisit as the full package of properties for a
>>> useful EducationalOccupationalCredential comes into view.
>>>
>>> [1] https://www.w3.org/community/eocred-schema/wiki/
>>> Show_organizations_that_recognize_an_educational_occupational_credential
>>>
>>> On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 2:36 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>