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

Phil, I agree that what we don't need is another competency framework
model. We already have one that's good in rich description for B2B
exchanges of competency frameworks (CASE) and another that's natively Web
(ASN and the CTDL-ASN profile). I see no reason pushing schema.org to
enable rich description of competency frameworks that takes it beyond it's
role in search. I think that DefinedTerm satisfies your (a), (b) and (c) in
the context of search...without quibbling about (b) being indirect. As an
RDF statement (or set of statements), e.g.,
EOCredInstance==skill==>DefinedTerm==inDefinedTermSet==>DefinedTermsSet,
there is nothing indirect.  With DefinedTerm and DefinedTermSet, I
potentially know: (a) the text of this "skill", (b) have a URI to more data
about it (if  a URI is provided)), (c) the name of the  framework to which
it belongs; and (d) a URI to that framework so I can explore more (again,
if a URI is provided).  That serves search and tells me a lot about this
resource and its related skill.

A while back, the LRMI work group, looked at DefinedTerm carefully in this
competency context and concluded that, for search,
DefinedTerm+DefinedTermSet did the job. We talked at length about its lack
of properties to provide structure to relate terms (broader/narrower |
hasChild/isChildOf) and to provide more context and concluded at that time
that what you bring up here would make sense IF further development were
deemed necessary. We'll have to see, in search, whether that additional
step is necessary--i.e., a kind of SKOSifying of DefinedTerm. If so, then
those structural terms might be better paired with a "CompetencyDefinition
and possibly CompetencyFramework" subtype of DefinedTerm, DefinedTermSet.

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 3:52 AM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> 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.
>