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: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 14:21:53 +0100
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Message-ID: <4cb69f74-8bb7-9cad-323a-a7ae81ef724d@pjjk.co.uk>

On 02/08/2019 13:06, Merrilea Mayo wrote:
>
> That said, for right now, there are multiple different definitions of 
> the same competency, within the same framework, with each definition 
> pertaining to that competency at a different level.  So I'm still 
> unclear on how we differentiate between these same-named entities 
> unless the competency owners, in a sudden fit of logic, decide to 
> assign a unique ID to each level - competency combination.  In that 
> world, we'd effectively have your wish come true Competency 101-3 
> could be be different  than 101-2, and you'd just treat them as 
> different objects
>
I'll take a stab at this. In a perfect linked data world it would be 
enough to provide just a URI for the competency: "skill": 
"http://example.org/competency/123" All the other information comes by 
looking up that URI.

In the real world, we need flexibility to deal with things that are not 
perfect, and I think that the DefinedTerm approach gives us this. Worst 
case scenario is that there are no identifiers and the framework in 
published as PDF. In that case we can still provide a description of the 
competency:

"skill": {
   "@type": "DefinedTerm",
   "name": "Critical Thinking - Level 1 - Beginner",
   "description": "determine whether a subordinate has a good excuse for being late",
   "inDefinedTermSet": {
     "name": "A Botched Framework",
     "url": "http://example.org/framework/45"
   }
}

As shown above, we don't *need* to use DefinedTerms for competency 
frameworks done properly for linked data, but we still could, and in 
doing so we help consumers who perhaps don't want to go the full hog on 
linked data:

"skill": {
   "@type": "DefinedTerm",
   "@id": "http://example.org/competency/123"
   "name": "Intermediate Woodworking"
   "inDefinedTermSet": {
     "name": "A Bodger's Framework",
     "url": "http://example.org/framework/45"
   }
}

Phil

> Your partner in dismay,
>
> Merrilea
>
> (tiny keyboard, pls excuse typos)
>
> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019, 7:04 PM Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com 
> <mailto:stuartasutton@gmail.com>> 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 Tuesday, 6 August 2019 13:22:23 UTC

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