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

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

From: Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Aug 2019 16:04:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CACetQ6EFn1nn7Gs=kdph19Rc6YQMMMGLO5u9Tszcid9YW+B8PA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
Cc: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Merrilea, you are correct that the use of progression models (in your
example,  "Level 1 - Beginner", "Level 2 - Intermediate"...) are frequent
(but not pervasive) and some existing rubrics and public competency
framework models use them. ASN (and CTDL-ASN) have a complexityLevel
property to capture this data about a competency). Should there be movement
toward subtyping DefinedTerm to something like Competency definition, such
a property might be considered.

There is another aspect to this, you note that that there is a "world of
difference between Level 1 and Level 4". I'd say that "Critical Thinking"
at level 1 and "Critical Thinking" at level 4 *are not the same thing at
all*...so why would they all be labeled (and URI'd) as thought they were
the same thing?  Why not, "Beginning Critical Thinking", "Intermediate
Critical Thinking", "Advanced Critical Thinking", and "Expert Critical
Thinking"--*each with its own definition*. (but, I am tilting at windmills).

On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 6:09 AM Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 23:04:54 UTC

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