Re: EOCred: recognition of credential

The work of this group ought to give the Verifiable Claims folk lots of
solid use case material to ground their discussions. As far as I see,
that's the direction of dependency.

On Fri, 18 May 2018, 15:08 Stuart Sutton, <stuartasutton@gmail.com> wrote:

> +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/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
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>