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

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

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

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