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

Re: Domain sketch

From: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 12:49:44 -0400
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Message-ID: <e2927e74-fb62-5f0d-d7f1-3357afc97c3a@gmail.com>
My vote lies with Alex's framing.  It is clean and it works.

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

fwiw, "assessment" is not limited to standardized tests.  For example, 
hands-on skills are typically still assessed through in-person 
evaluation by a human.  Once you get to a broader view of assessment, 
everything else fits in this framing.

Merrilea

On 8/19/2019 11:36 AM, Alex Jackl 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 <mailto:alex@bardicsystems.com>
> M: 508.395.2836
> F: 617.812.6020
> http://bardicsystems.com <http://bardicsystems.com/>
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nadeau, Gregory <gnadeau@pcgus.com 
> <mailto: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:
>
>     https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/bSatpUf4dqQ3J0rWNtXXEL35xDDZHKYE6NlcobcNIo-uVYMV5yfxlyWCcjGj55e9RwdGh6sZm8XIQUT6OX-eC-9KRIU30DcRLpKYFxrrmVgG7mtrtEi5LrgOOhSMF5oZ_x8P1EX6v_k
>
>     **
>
>     	
>
>     *Greg Nadeau
>     *Manager
>
>     781-370-1017
>
>     gnadeau@pcgus.com <mailto:gnadeau@pcgus.com>
>
>     publicconsultinggroup.com <http://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
>     <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>>
>     *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 6:03 AM
>     *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org <mailto: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
>     <http://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.
>
-- 

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 Monday, 19 August 2019 16:50:11 UTC

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