Re: EOCred: recognition of credential

Let's leave the verification of claims, crypto etc, out of it for now.
Better to focus initially on having a simple-enough, usable, reasonably
expressive descriptive model that matches existing content and likely
applications.

Dan

On Fri, 18 May 2018, 13:38 Wes Turner, <wes.turner@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>>>
>>>
>