Re: Domain sketch

I agree with Greg that the distinction between the "achievement
description" and the "achievement assertion" is critical, but in this case
I think we are once again running aground on the semantic reefs.

If we think of an "achievement description" as a description of a
Knowledge, Skill, Aptitude, or Experience (either inside of some taxonomy
or not) then it matches cleanly what most people mean by competency.

It typically does not include the assessment or test that would "prove"
"provide evidence" that that competency exists with some person.  That
matches with what people usually refer to as an "assessment" or
"evidence".

Once you have a record that matches a person with a "competency" or
"achievement description", and "evidence" or "assertion" from an "approved"
organization that that person has either passed an assessment or done
something that shows that... you have an "achievement assertion" or
"credential".

I think it is that simple.  :-)    Now - I know each of these categories
have hierarchies and taxonomies and differing levels of granularity and
different ways t o represent an assessment or organizations
trustworthiness  or authority, but this model can be represented by what
Phil is describing.

What am I missing?   I see no issue with the following semantic
equivalences:
competency <-> achievement  description
assessment <-> evidence (I understand that not all evidence takes the form
of a "test" but you are assessing somehow!)
credential <-> achievement assertion


***
Alexander Jackl
CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc.
alex@bardicsystems.com
M: 508.395.2836
F: 617.812.6020
http://bardicsystems.com


On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nadeau, Gregory <gnadeau@pcgus.com> wrote:

> Friends,
>
>
>
> I challenge the aspect of the model that separates a competency from
> credential.  I believe that both credentials as expressed by CTDL and
> competencies as CASE (as well as badges and micro-credentials) are all
> overlapping labels and structures for expressing the general Achievement
> Description.  Degree, credential, micro-credential, badge, skill,
> knowledge, ability, course objective, academic standard, and learning
> target are all labels for this concept without accepted boundaries between
> them and distinctions.  The more important distinction from an information
> architecture standpoint is separation of the general, linked-data public
> Achievement Description from the Achievement Assertion that contains PII
> data about the Learner:
>
>
>
> [image:
> https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/bSatpUf4dqQ3J0rWNtXXEL35xDDZHKYE6NlcobcNIo-uVYMV5yfxlyWCcjGj55e9RwdGh6sZm8XIQUT6OX-eC-9KRIU30DcRLpKYFxrrmVgG7mtrtEi5LrgOOhSMF5oZ_x8P1EX6v_k]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Greg Nadeau *Manager
>
>
>
> 781-370-1017
>
> gnadeau@pcgus.com
>
> publicconsultinggroup.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information
> intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law.  If
> you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are
> hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
> message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 6:03 AM
> *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org
> *Subject:* Domain sketch
>
>
>
> Hello all, I got a little feedback about the domain sketch that I've shown
> a couple of times, and have altered it accordingly, and tried to clarify
> what is and isn't currently in schema.org.
>
> Here it is again. I'm thinking about putting it on the wiki, and hoping
> that, along with the issue list
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fcommunity%2Ftalent-signal%2Fwiki%2FIssues%2C_use_cases_and_requirements%23Issues_open_for_consideration&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cf04a5ecab0d14bb0f0cf08d72167eb43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=Nhc9cM8mbfLRG16nr01WEQ8ylGObKJpuKWhWYLqLcus%3D&reserved=0>,
> it might serve as a useful way of introducing what we are about and what we
> are doing.
>
> I really want to stress that it is not intended to be a complete or formal
> domain model, nor is it intended to be prescriptive. (I think that for a
> domain as big as this, with so many possible perspectives, it is premature
> to try to get consensus on a complete formal model now, if indeed that will
> ever be possible.)
>
> I would welcome feedback on whether this sketch helps, and how it might be
> improved, what needs further explanation, or anything else.
>
> Regards, Phil
>
> --
>
> Phil Barker
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.pjjk.net%2Fphil&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cf04a5ecab0d14bb0f0cf08d72167eb43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=zN%2FjfUYgOyfKWpCyH1iO2nfUQ6%2Ba4kKHck6oOHWQheI%3D&reserved=0>.
> http://people.pjjk.net/phil
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.pjjk.net%2Fphil&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cf04a5ecab0d14bb0f0cf08d72167eb43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=zN%2FjfUYgOyfKWpCyH1iO2nfUQ6%2Ba4kKHck6oOHWQheI%3D&reserved=0>
> CETIS LLP
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cetis.org.uk&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cf04a5ecab0d14bb0f0cf08d72167eb43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=8FM3Gtfs3VpjhfAGifcLnA7MRSVSfn7brapJUAarzKk%3D&reserved=0>:
> a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
> PJJK Limited
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pjjk.co.uk&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cf04a5ecab0d14bb0f0cf08d72167eb43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=9YVleb4SuOomQvCPtQvQfecRo1Qqrs1Yf2GhQWtMPCU%3D&reserved=0>:
> 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.
>