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

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

From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 2 Aug 2019 12:59:17 +0100
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Message-ID: <42ac5c25-9ae9-12d2-7f56-ff9580c9685b@pjjk.co.uk>
Yes, I tend to agree that if there is a world of difference between two 
things they are different things.

This does touch a little on another issue around statements of 
competencies required for given jobs, which is that the requirement is 
often not and unqualified binary. So I would like pre-empt any questions 
about whether this approach works with more nuanced requirement 
statements such as distinguishing between required and desired 
competencies (must have and nice to have), and statements such as "must 
be expert in" versus "must be aware of". This could get really 
complicated; it could lead to a proliferation of requirement-related 
terms. Another approach is to allow local annotations of relationship 
between the job and the competence (this is the approach taken by JDX, 
with an 'AnnotatedDefinedTerm'). So, I just want to note here that using 
the skills property to point to competency is not a blind alley in terms 
of being more nuanced about requirements.

Phil

On 02/08/2019 00:04, Stuart Sutton wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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 <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.
>>
>     -- 
>
>     Merrilea J. Mayo, Ph.D.
>     Mayo Enterprises, LLC
>     12101 Sheets Farm Rd.
>     North Potomac, MD 20878
>
>     merrileamayo@gmail.com <mailto:merrileamayo@gmail.com>
>     https://merrileamayo.com/
>     240-304-0439 (cell)
>     301-977-2599 (landline)
>
-- 

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.
Received on Friday, 2 August 2019 11:59:43 UTC

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