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

Re: Domain sketch

From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:10:03 +0100
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Message-ID: <6982b0f7-34d0-680a-c30c-23ca672458eb@pjjk.co.uk>
Thanks Julie, that is useful.

What I am struggling with is what it means to "award a competency" as 
opposed to "award a credential that recognizes competency".

And, yes your unpacking from my email is useful, but I would unpack 
further: "A student may not fulfill all the requirements for a 
credential but still be eligible for a credential that recognizes any 
competency that they have demonstrated"

There may be some difference in understanding of what a competency is, 
I'm trying to write something to get to the bottom of that.

Phil

On 19/08/2019 19:17, Julie Uranis wrote:
>
> Hi everyone-
>
> I’ve been lurking but Jason’s email inspired me to chime in. I’m 
> +1’ing his comment, that is if his interpretation of “A credential can 
> be offered by an EducationalOrganization but a competency cannot be” 
> is accurate. I share his concern with this statement.
>
> EducationalOrganization must be able to offer both credentials and 
> competencies understanding that they can be of same class. To echo and 
> append Jason, this is both the way the field is moving and is a 
> reality for the millions of students that leave higher education 
> without credentials but with competencies. Being inclusive of these 
> conditions would fit with known use cases and student characteristics.
>
> To pull in your last email, “Organizations can offer assessments that 
> assess competencies, and if passed lead to the award of credentials.” 
> I think we need to parse this a bit more. Organizations can offer 
> assessments that assess competencies that may or may not lead to a 
> credential – and the student may never complete the full credential, 
> so the credential needs to be recognized as an item unto itself.
>
> If this interpretation is wrong and my email unhelpful I’m happy to 
> return to my lurker status. J
>
> Julie
>
> *From:*Tyszko, Jason [mailto:jtyszko@USChamber.com]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 2:02 PM
> *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org
> *Subject:* RE: Domain sketch
>
> Phil,
>
> I’m coming in late to the conversation, and I’m probably not 
> understanding that context, but I thought I would chime in anyway, 
> just in case.  The statement below caught my attention:
>
> A credential can be offered by an EducationalOrganization but a 
> competency cannot be.
>
> Are we suggesting that, per the way schemas are currently setup, an 
> EducationalOrganization cannot offer competencies in lieu of 
> credentials?  If so, that strikes me as potentially limiting and not 
> necessarily reflective of where the field is going.
>
> In T3 and in our other work, employers, for instance, are increasingly 
> interested in competency-based hiring outside of credentialing.  
> Competencies are increasingly needed to stand alone so employer, 
> education providers, workforce trainers, and others, can offer 
> competencies as part of a learner or worker record.  This is also 
> consistent with where the university registrars are going in the U.S.  
> From where the Chamber stands, credentials can include competencies, 
> but competencies are not exclusively found in a credential.
>
> Not sure if my comments add value given where the conversation was 
> going, but in order for us to support innovations in the talent 
> marketplace, we need a data infrastructure that makes this distinction 
> clear.  Happy to walk this back if I’m off track.
>
> Jason
>
> *From:*Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk 
> <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 1:44 PM
> *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org <mailto:public-talent-signal@w3.org>
> *Subject:* Re: Domain sketch
>
> 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>
>     <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>     *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 12:59 PM
>     *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org <mailto: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 
> <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.
>
-- 

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 Tuesday, 20 August 2019 10:10:33 UTC

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