- 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