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

Re: Domain sketch

From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 17:59:28 +0100
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Message-ID: <bcb44e27-3a85-9c28-f4cd-bbf79e7bccc3@pjjk.co.uk>
I agree mostly with Alex (and Stuart's reply). I want to add some 
consideration of context into the mix and think about reuse of terms in 
different contexts (which is how schema.org works).

In short, I think the distinction between assertions and descriptions 
comes from putting circles around different parts of the domain sketch 
(different profiles of the same set of terms, if you prefer). This is 
part of what I mean when I say that it is not a domain model because 
there are different perspectives on it. I think what Alex describes is 
one (valid) set of perspectives.

In achievement descriptions, competency is separated from credential in 
most of the work that we are following (CTDL, OpenBadges BadgeClass, 
ESCO etc.), and it needs to be. When describing an 
EducationalOccupationalCredential you need to be able to say what 
competencies are being credentialed. That's why the competencyRequired 
property of EducationalOccupationalCredential got into schema.org.

It's also useful to separate competencies from credentials when 
describing learning resources. Then it is necessary to be able to show 
an alignment to a learning objective (i.e. a competence) separately from 
credentials, in order to promote reuse in different contexts.

But in other contexts the schema.org classes can be used as part of an 
assertion. I don't think anyone is doing this in schema.org, but if I 
were to write, as part of a JSON-LD CV (and I'm making up a couple of 
properties):

{
    "@id": "http://people.pjjk.net/phil#id",
    "hasCredential": {
       "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
       "name": "PhD in Physics",
       "issuedBy": "https://www.bristol.ac.uk/",
    },
    "hasSkill": "Educational metadata modeling"   //a literal representing a competence, could be DefinedTerm
}

then I am making achievement assertions. (And in order to make these 
assertions verifiable you would have to wrap them up into some 
collection of assertions and provide the means of verification.)

I agree with Alex that

> 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"

But not with

> or "credential".

As Stuart says, to date in schema.org the 
EducationalOccupationalCredential class has been used to represent a 
credential offered (something that "may be awarded") in the sense of 
being the thing that the University of Bristol says I can sign up to if 
I want to study for a PhD in physics, not the specific PhD that I hold. 
So this is an example of a EducationalOccupationalCredential that is not 
an achievement assertion:

{
    "@type": "EducationalOccupationalProgram",
    "url": "http://www.bristol.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/2019/sci/phd-physics/"
    "educationalCredentialAwarded": {
       "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
       "name": "PhD in Physics"
    }
}

Phil

On 19/08/2019 16:36, 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.
>
-- 

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.
Received on Monday, 19 August 2019 16:59:55 UTC

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