- 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