W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-talent-signal@w3.org > August 2019

Re: [Talent-Signal] relating competencies to job postings

From: Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 02:35:30 +0000 (UTC)
To: <public-talent-signal@w3.org>
Message-ID: <436843982.7426.1564626931044@mail.yahoo.com>
I agree the structure of skills (or the proposed competencyRequired from the EOC extension) with DefinedTerm/DefinedTermSet works for now. 
I’m wondering however, assuming the current work is going to get more organizations doing linked data for Competencies, then it would be better to introduce a more complete Competency vocabulary and get orgs using that, then propose it to Schema.org with evidence that it is already being used. The communities we are connected to are the ones most likely to mark up with more than just a text label for a skill or to publish complete frameworks.
If we work within current limitations of Schema now we lock into an imperfect solution and future breaking changes for implemeters should we ever want to have a more complete solution in the future. 
I guess it depends on how much we think the current work will drive practice...It’s a chicken and egg problem and I’m wondering if going with the egg would be best.
Jim



On Wednesday, July 31, 2019, 2:47 PM, Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com> wrote:

 
Ah, yes, I was in fact behind the times.  The DefinedTermSet discussion came out while I was gone, and I hadn't caught it (or scrolled down far enough).  So, that gets us 75% of the way there, I think, and anything beyond that is a future sufficiently far off it's probably not worth spending time to work on it yet.  I knew I'd end up apologizing one way or another for my lapse, but at least now I'm caught up.
 
Thanks for your infinite patience, Phil.
 
 
Merrilea
 
 On 7/31/2019 1:15 PM, Phil Barker wrote:
  
 

Merrilea, so sorry to hear about your mother.
 
Yes, currently skills in schema.org are just text values. The example hidden down the bottom of this page shows a suggested refinement of that to controlled values drawn from a "DefinedTermSet" That defined term set would be a competency framework. So:
 
 
  "skills": {     "@type": "Definedterm",     "termCode": "K0016",     "description": "Knowledge of computer programming principles",     "inDefinedTermSet": {       "@type": "DefinedTermSet",       "name": "National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Cybersecurity Workforce Framework",       "url": "https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-181",       "publisher": {         "@type": "Organization",         "name": "National Institute of Standards and Technology"       },       "datePublished": "2017-08"     }   }
 
This mirrors the approach the Educational Occupational Credentials community took when wanting to specify what a Credential certified, this is from the example at the end of the page for schema:EducationalOccupationalCredential
   "competencyRequired" : {
    "@type": "DefinedTerm",
    "termCode": "ASTFM401",
    "name": "Understand facilities management and its place in the organisation",
    "url": "https://www.ukstandards.org.uk/PublishedNos/ASTFM401.pdf",
    "inDefinedTermSet": "https://www.ukstandards.org.uk/"
  } 
There isn't currently anything in schema.org for Assessments, and we don't have a means of declaring a defined term as being a Competency statement, but if we can agree that the existing skills property should point to definitions of competencies, then we will be one more step towards having competencies surrounded.
 
I'm not so comfortable about using the skills property to point to directly to an EducationalOccupationalCredential. The existing qualification and educationalExperience properties seem a better match for that (I use qualification in the sense of the definitions gathered by UNESCO) 
 
 
In writing this I remember a sketch of the Talent Signalling domain that I used in the kick-off webinar 
 
 

 
I still think this works. I'm not sure how big a bite to take at it, I certainly don't want to suggest everything in it to schema.org in one go, but I'm now thinking that we might usefully think about whether it is a reasonable framework around which to have our discussions?
 
 
Phil
 
 On 31/07/2019 17:41, Merrilea Mayo wrote:
  
 

So.. let me preface my undoubtedly ignorant and way-behind-the times comment with the disclaimer that I, too, have been away from work.  I'm just now back from the three week "farewell" cruise with my mother (she was diagnosed with terminal cancer on Memorial Day).  I more or less dropped everything during those 3 weeks, including this group.  Add to that, the cruise spent about half its time north of the Arctic circle, and so modern communication, even by satellite, was extremely spotty.  So, be aware I'm not all here. 
 
 
Here's the probably-late-to-the-party comment:  I see that our current schema for "skills" assumes that a loose English language description is sufficient.  This may be true for now.  However, we can see organizations starting to develop skills frameworks, skills definitions, and skills assessments to back up very specific definitions.  At that point, there will be "critical thinking" as defined/certified by organization ABC and "creativity" as defined/certified by organization XYZ.  Once skills be come "certifiable" (I  mean that in the "testable/documented" sense, not in the "crazy-lady" sense), you will need some properties that are currently associated with more formal concepts, like EducationalOccupationalCredential.  Certified skills in essence become mini-credentials.  I am not sure what is supposed to happen at that point.  Do people just migrate to using EducationalOccupationalCredential instead of Skill for the same concept?
 
 
Thoughts?
 
Merrilea
 
 On 7/31/2019 7:33 AM, Phil Barker wrote:
  
 

Hello all,
 
I would like to prod this discussion for further input, just because I know that several people (including me) on this list have been away from work since I first raised it.
 
 
So far the message that I'm seeing is that the simple approach I showed in the email (below) and on the wiki [1] is adequate, and that while there are complexities that may be represented elsewhere, the existing schema.org property skills is adequate for relating any type of required competence to a job posting.
 
I'm interested in hearing more opinions regarding this, whether agreeing or not with that approach.
 
Regards, Phil
 
 1. https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Example_of_how_to_refer_skills_requirements_to_competency_definitions 2. https://schema.org/skills 
  On 04/07/2019 17:50, Nadeau, Gregory wrote:
  
 
#yiv3203799563 #yiv3203799563 -- _filtered #yiv3203799563 {font-family:Wingdings;panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {font-family:Consolas;panose-1:2 11 6 9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}#yiv3203799563 #yiv3203799563 p.yiv3203799563MsoNormal, #yiv3203799563 li.yiv3203799563MsoNormal, #yiv3203799563 div.yiv3203799563MsoNormal {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv3203799563 a:link, #yiv3203799563 span.yiv3203799563MsoHyperlink {color:blue;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3203799563 a:visited, #yiv3203799563 span.yiv3203799563MsoHyperlinkFollowed {color:purple;text-decoration:underline;}#yiv3203799563 pre {margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:10.0pt;}#yiv3203799563 tt {}#yiv3203799563 p.yiv3203799563MsoListParagraph, #yiv3203799563 li.yiv3203799563MsoListParagraph, #yiv3203799563 div.yiv3203799563MsoListParagraph {margin-top:0in;margin-right:0in;margin-bottom:0in;margin-left:.5in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv3203799563 p.yiv3203799563msonormal0, #yiv3203799563 li.yiv3203799563msonormal0, #yiv3203799563 div.yiv3203799563msonormal0 {margin-right:0in;margin-left:0in;font-size:11.0pt;font-family:sans-serif;}#yiv3203799563 span.yiv3203799563HTMLPreformattedChar {font-family:Consolas;}#yiv3203799563 span.yiv3203799563EmailStyle22 {font-family:sans-serif;color:windowtext;}#yiv3203799563 .yiv3203799563MsoChpDefault {font-family:sans-serif;} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}#yiv3203799563 div.yiv3203799563WordSection1 {}#yiv3203799563 _filtered #yiv3203799563 {} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {font-family:Wingdings;} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {font-family:Symbol;} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {} _filtered #yiv3203799563 {font-family:Wingdings;}#yiv3203799563 ol {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv3203799563 ul {margin-bottom:0in;}#yiv3203799563  
Hello All –
 
  
 
From my perspective, delineating distinctions between knowledge, skills, abilities is mostly an exercise in semantics and is not necessary for information modelling.  The more critical functional distinction is between:
    
   - An  achievement – something that more than one person could demonstrate (examples include: SKA, competency, credential, etc)
   - An  assertion – a specific instance by an issuer about a recipient (learner/worker) regarding the achievement
 
  
 
Other terms could be used.  This distinction aligns with the IMS Global Open Badge and new draft candidate Comprehensive Learner Record specification.
 
  
 
g.
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
|  

  |  
Greg Nadeau
 Manager
 
  
 
781-370-1017
 
gnadeau@pcgus.com
 
publicconsultinggroup.com 
 
  
 
  
 
  
  |

 
  
 
This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. 
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
  
 
From: Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com> 
 Sent: Wednesday, July 3, 2019 9:37 PM
 To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
 Subject: Re: [Talent-Signal] relating competencies to job postings
 
  
   
I have decided to re-open the can of worms, because it is a holiday weekend, and discussion is what the holidays are about.
   
  
   
There are a constellation of objects and relationships that, I believe, represent some clarity when it comes to relating a number of these things. Let me know if I am making some fundamental error here.
 
 Definitions: First, there is task itself. This represents a repeatable thing that can be done by an individual. A competence/competency represents the capability of an individual to perform a task. Demonstrating a task implies competence and the ability to employ KSAs.
 
 KSAs are not directly demonstrable, because skills, knowledge, and abilities -- in their latent form -- are not expressible. They can only be demonstrated when performing a model task or representative task -- then ipso facto one is demonstrating competence or a competency, because one is employing a combination of KSAs to perform a task.
  
  
   
----- Examples -----
   

 So, to call something a skill or knowledge or ability is to speak about latent notions -- The knowledge of Pi to 25 places is latent. Reciting Pi to 25 places is a task. A person's capability to recite Pi to 25 places is a competency, because it necessarily employs a combination of KSAs -- breathing, memory, sequencing, the numbers, the number system, speech, etc to perform a task, reciting Pi to 25 places, in a context that requires those KSAs -- A classroom, a bus, a job interview.
   
  
   
The skill of sharpening a pencil is latent, bottled up in the human (or machine, but never mind that) brain and spine and whatever other parts. Sharpening a pencil is a task. The competence to sharpen a pencil employs all manner of other KSAs that perform the task and  create an outcome.
   
  
   
The ability to stand is only provable through the act or task of standing.... Repeat explanation...
   
  
   
Therefore, I think the labels skills is fine. I believe skills are separate from knowledge or natural abilities or acquired abilities, so there may be something there -- but putting a competency in the place of a skill is not wrong per se. One (a skill) identifies a context free and task free latent  capability that may or may not be deployable in other contexts, the other (a competency) is more explicit and grounded in task and context.
   

 ---- Continued nannerings -----
   
Likewise, a Learning Objective is only expressible through a competency because an individual's having learned all they can learn (whether that involves performing the objective task or not) has a competence gap between what they learned or did in the learning environment and what they will do in the target environment. The KSAs employed demonstrating that competency in the "field" as it were are probably different from the classroom and lab environments. These contextual gaps don't exist when we talk about the knowledge it takes to remember how to spell quixotic, but the context matters suddenly when done on a stage with a bright light at a spelling bee.
   
  
   
On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:24 AM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:
  
  
Hello all,
 
I know that many of you are about start a holiday; and after that I will be on vacation. So this may not be the best time to start a conversation, but I want to post this now to see what I come back to...
 
One of the issues we have listed is how to refer skills requirements to competency definitions in a standard framework.
 
I have drafted on the wiki a straw man for a  simple way of doing this [1] with minimal change to what currently exists in  schema.org. It requires only that the expected type for one property be changed.
  {   "@context": "http://schema.org/",   "@type": "JobPosting",   "title": "Junior software developer",   "skills": {     "@type": "Definedterm",     "termCode": "K0016",     "description": "Knowledge of computer programming principles",     "inDefinedTermSet": {       "@type": "DefinedTermSet",       "name": "National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE) Cybersecurity Workforce Framework",       "url": "https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-181",       "publisher": {         "@type": "Organization",         "name": "National Institute of Standards and Technology"       },       "datePublished": "2017-08"     }   } }  
Points to note / consider
 
* this doesn't attempt to fully describe the competency, that's the job of the framework. Furthermore this approach is pretty much agnostic to the format used to represent the framework--I mean, it would be nice if a linked-data friendly format were used and we can then link properly to its @id but this example is a pdf.
 
* is there any other key information that is required to identify the competence being referred to? 
 
* I've used the existing  schema.org property skills to cover a competency that is defined as 'knowledge'. I know the KSA approach to competencies, but also that other aspects can be added (tools/technologies, attitudes) an other approaches taken. Can we live with lumping these together under the label skills, or do we have to look into creating a property with a different name? We will be somewhat constrained by existing  schema.org usage. Also I think that trying to separate out the different aspects of competence would cause difficulties when implemented in the non-specialist  schema.org context. Remember, the competence framework is where the information should be provided about what aspect of competence (knowledge, skill or ability) is being referred to.
 
Best wishes to all celebrating the 4 July.
 
Phil
 
  
 
1. https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Example_of_how_to_refer_skills_requirements_to_competency_definitions
  
-- 
 
Phil Barker.  http://people.pjjk.net/phil
 CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
 PJJK Limited: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education.
 
CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090
 PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282.
   
    -- 
 
Phil Barker. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
 CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
 PJJK Limited: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education.
 
CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090
 PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282.
  -- 
 
Merrilea J. Mayo, Ph.D.
 Mayo Enterprises, LLC
 12101 Sheets Farm Rd.
 North Potomac, MD 20878
 
 
merrileamayo@gmail.com
 https://merrileamayo.com/
 240-304-0439 (cell)
 301-977-2599 (landline)
  -- 
 
Phil Barker. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
 CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
 PJJK Limited: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education.
 
CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090
 PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282.
  -- 
 
Merrilea J. Mayo, Ph.D.
 Mayo Enterprises, LLC
 12101 Sheets Farm Rd.
 North Potomac, MD 20878
 
 
merrileamayo@gmail.com
 https://merrileamayo.com/
 240-304-0439 (cell)
 301-977-2599 (landline)
  



image002.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image002.jpg)

Received on Thursday, 1 August 2019 02:36:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:33:36 UTC