- From: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Aug 2019 09:36:46 -0400
- To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
- Message-ID: <b7b77e9e-97ba-d373-13b8-76800d2b8095@gmail.com>
"Bodger" -- I learned a new vocabulary word today!
Thanks to your examples, Phil, I think I'm at the point where I can see
how one would do this, though I suspect it's not going to be
particularly intuitive for the folks who design frameworks. I suppose
this means I can get more consulting work, which might not be a bad outcome.
In any event, I'm happy to let the issue rest. We can move on.
Merrilea
On 8/6/2019 9:21 AM, Phil Barker wrote:
>
>
> 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.
>
--
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 Tuesday, 6 August 2019 13:37:12 UTC