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

What Stuart sets out here is my default position: we don't need a 
specific term for competencies unless we have a specific requirement.

We should remain aware that if such a requirement arises we can 
accommodate it within the framework of DefinedTerms

Phil

On 01/08/2019 23:36, Stuart Sutton wrote:
> 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 
> <http://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 
> <mailto: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 <http://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 <http://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.
>
-- 

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.