- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Fri, 18 May 2018 14:02:35 +0100
- To: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>, Wes Turner <wes.turner@gmail.com>
- Cc: Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com>, Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>, "public-eocred-schema@w3.org" <public-eocred-schema@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <9322cd33-e8ed-59eb-a47d-f5fc1e2ec985@pjjk.co.uk>
+1 That's the intention. Phil. On 18/05/18 13:58, Dan Brickley wrote: > 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 > <mailto: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 > <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://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 >> <mailto: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 >> <http://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 >>> <http://schema.org> statements. If I use >>> schema.org <http://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 >>> <http://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 <http://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 <http://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 >>> <http://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 <http://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 > > -- 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
Received on Friday, 18 May 2018 13:03:05 UTC