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

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

From: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 09:08:57 -0400
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Message-ID: <515fd6fb-e617-d253-77ee-faa0172b365b@gmail.com>
If we're considering "what else to add," the one thing nearly all the 
competency frameworks are converging on now, that is not necessarily 
represented in DefinedTerm, are gradations of expertise within 
competency.  This is not dissimilar to degree fields  having levels 
within them:  bachelors, masters, Ph.D. Most competency frameworks 
(e.g., Connecting Credentials, Center for Curriculum Redesign) assign 4 
levels, because this is kind of standard for rubrics used in teaching, 
but we wouldn't need to assume an exact number of levels.  DOL, for 
example, intrinsically has 3 benchmark levels underlying each competence.

To illustrate the 4 level system, within Critical Thinking you'd 
typically have

  * Critical Thinking - Level 1 - Beginner  (e.g., "determine whether a
    subordinate has a good excuse for being late")
  * Critical Thinking - Level 2 - Intermediate
  * Critical Thinking - Level 3 - Advanced
  * Critical Thinking - Level 4 - Expert  (e.g., "write a legal brief
    challenging a federal law" - this is actually a Level 3 exemplar in
    the DOL system)

I'm thinking the level gradations might be a useful thing to accommodate 
because there is a world of difference between Level 1 and Level 4 in 
these rubrics.  If employers ever start specifying competencies 
rigorously, they'll want to specify a level, too.

Merrilea

On 8/1/2019 6:52 AM, Phil Barker wrote:
>
> On 01/08/2019 03:35, Jim Goodell wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Yes, that's a good question.
>
> Am I right in thinking that we are not in the position of wanting to 
> create a schema.org-based way of representing the full detail of 
> competency frameworks themselves? That is, of building a schema.org 
> specification that would allow systems to exchange all the details of 
> the competency frameworks they use. My feeling is that there are 
> already N specifications trying to do that and having N+1 isn't the 
> way to go.
>
> If that's right, then the question is: what do we want to do with 
> competencies in schema.org? I think we want to /refer to them/ in a 
> way that lets a system (a) know that they are a competency, (b) show 
> sufficient information about them ('sufficient' is open to 
> interpretation), and (c) know where to get / point the user to further 
> information.
>
> I am confident that using a DefinedTerm satisfies (c). We need a 
> little more input to know whether (b) is satisfied.
>
> DefinedTerm also satisfies (a), if we allow for a certain amount of 
> inferencing, i.e. 'this DefinedTerm is used as the object of a 
> schema.org:skill therefor it must be some sort of competence'. We 
> could remove the need for inferencing by suggesting one or two new 
> types, say, CompetencyDefinition and possibly CompetencyFramework 
> which would initially indicate explicitly that the thing being 
> described is related to compentencies and could additionally provide 
> information on the competency. For starters I would suggest we would 
> want to know what type of competence it is (knowledge, skill, ability, 
> tool/technology, personal attribute...) and what standard encodings 
> are available (ASN, CASS, CASE...)
>
> Is that an egg worth incubating?
>
> Phil
>
>
> -- 
>
> Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
> CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for 
> innovation in education technology.
> PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: 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)
Received on Thursday, 1 August 2019 13:09:22 UTC

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