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 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

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