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

Re: Domain sketch

From: Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 08:41:35 -0700
Message-ID: <CACetQ6FDi9yu4AAc1V0at762bDi7og7HDybg-PXi9YQY1mN4TQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com>
Cc: "Nadeau, Gregory" <gnadeau@pcgus.com>, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>, "public-talent-signal@w3.org" <public-talent-signal@w3.org>
While the distinction certainly exists between description and assertion,
we need to be clear that in the TalentSignal context, we aren't talking
about assertions.

On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 8:36 AM Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com> wrote:

> 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.
>>
>

image003.png
(image/png attachment: image003.png)

image001.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image001.jpg)

image002.jpg
(image/jpeg attachment: image002.jpg)

Received on Monday, 19 August 2019 15:42:11 UTC

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