Re: EOCred: recognition of credential

+1 for me as well...looks like a gathering crowd...

On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 6:04 AM, Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com> wrote:

> +1 on my part as well.
>
> Alexander Jackl
> CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc.
> alex@bardicsystems.com
> M: 508.395.2836
> O: 401.384.0566
> F: 617.812.6020
> http://bardicsystems.com
>
> On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 9:02 AM, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> +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> 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/20
>>>>>> 18Apr/0004.html
>>>>>> 2. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/20
>>>>>> 18May/0000.html
>>>>>> 3. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/20
>>>>>> 18May/0001.html
>>>>>> 4. https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-eocred-schema/20
>>>>>> 18Apr/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
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> 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
>>
>
>