- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2019 18:43:44 +0100
- To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
- Message-ID: <30ad9eff-2f0c-6dec-5455-9286de5b5a62@pjjk.co.uk>
On 19/08/2019 18:19, Nadeau, Gregory wrote:
>
> My understanding of CTDL is that it only models Credentials as
> Achievement Descriptions, and does not include models for PII
> Assertion Records.
>
True, but the addition of hasCredential
<https://schema.org/hasCredential> as a property of Person in schema.org
is a significant change from that.
> While a relativist view could assert that the any distinction could
> be semantic and change in context, I continue to assert that there is
> a hard logical distinction between Achievement and Assertion,
>
True, but they can be modeled with similar terms. There is a hard
logical distinction between a Person and a Book, but they both have a
name. There is a logical distinction between a TextBook and a Course,
but many of their properties and attributes are the same. Achievement
and Assertion can be modeled as different profiles drawn from the same
term set.
> but not between Competency and Credential.
>
> While it is true that Credentials can have Competencies, they are in
> fact the same class of entity and often have recursive associations
> between them.
>
With the simple distinction that a credential can require a competency
but a competency cannot require a credential.
A credential can be offered by an EducationalOrganization but a
competency cannot be.
Outside of learner records, credentials and competencies are quite
different.
Phil
> In short:
>
> Achievement Description types include Credentials, Competencies,
> Skills. While historically different in some contexts, increasingly
> these terms are blurred and there is no logical/structural difference
> between them.
>
> Achievement Assertions can refer to Achievement Descriptions and
> include specific PII information about the Learner and Issuer, and can
> include specific instance information like Evidence, Endorsement,
> Result, and Verification.
>
> Greg Nadeau
>
> Chair, IMS Global CLR
>
> Chair, IEEE CM4LTS
>
> *From:*Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 12:59 PM
> *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Domain sketch
>
> 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" <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.pjjk.net%2Fphil%23id&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=OjN7d4yOZAz%2FEOPSM5UUJhz5lzZxgf3S0PR%2BN2woZAM%3D&reserved=0>,
> "hasCredential": {
> "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
> "name": "PhD in Physics",
> "issuedBy":"https://www.bristol.ac.uk/" <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bristol.ac.uk%2F&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=VfvNkGLhvdwwmy%2FKy26UmLyVgXOENIFX%2Bhb2RHlNgFc%3D&reserved=0>,
> },
> "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/" <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bristol.ac.uk%2Fstudy%2Fpostgraduate%2F2019%2Fsci%2Fphd-physics%2F&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=FNiUXEKEslmkB0C4wUuVorWHKnGcPkcIBJWrOd3vowo%3D&reserved=0>
> "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
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbardicsystems.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=Pt21CQ4Vt9zb6dc%2FsndTH9APIJ0KdXfGs1M9fss%2FzoE%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> 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
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicconsultinggroup.com&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=S7wwp3EIiOQrR9PHMTok%2BJU%2B5G79QufCB4%2BFBmCdvYw%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> **
>
> 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
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=79ki8sv52msOXfEk%2FpXVMt%2BzPyXnmFNfn2HIF8MRiuA%3D&reserved=0>.
>
>
> 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%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=K4ZA3A2qLVNx2nK34H15DTqyddggE5Eyh69qUbZWyzA%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%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wp%2BKWrKmRT0kMuHaN5opZwjB9NeM1VVMjuoBFlSDlk8%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%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wp%2BKWrKmRT0kMuHaN5opZwjB9NeM1VVMjuoBFlSDlk8%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%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=j5895k0tabo83ffun7xsGeEQ26iYShNmWm6lG3BGxz4%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%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wVq0gqKNSar%2BQ12HwkaRPn7oeuynxosJ%2FcHIzXjDzto%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
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.pjjk.net%2Fphil&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wp%2BKWrKmRT0kMuHaN5opZwjB9NeM1VVMjuoBFlSDlk8%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%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wp%2BKWrKmRT0kMuHaN5opZwjB9NeM1VVMjuoBFlSDlk8%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%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=j5895k0tabo83ffun7xsGeEQ26iYShNmWm6lG3BGxz4%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%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wVq0gqKNSar%2BQ12HwkaRPn7oeuynxosJ%2FcHIzXjDzto%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 17:44:12 UTC