- From: Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 08:05:39 -0700
- To: "Tyszko, Jason" <jtyszko@uschamber.com>
- Cc: "Nadeau, Gregory" <gnadeau@pcgus.com>, Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com>, Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>, Julie Uranis <juranis@upcea.edu>, "public-talent-signal@w3.org" <public-talent-signal@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CACetQ6EZTP13izUJ7kwaA6FQibC=vt-LyBzj=ZQHJDdx8kh2Cg@mail.gmail.com>
:-) Jason, it was just a question as to immediate relevance. It could be relevant to what's lined up in our wiki queue and I may not see it. Known to happen. On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 8:02 AM Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@uschamber.com> wrote: > The charter of the group would suggest this is the appropriate forum, > though it may not be the appropriate time. We can parking lot this > conversation for later once we get the job descriptions and posting piece > right. > > > > Jason > > > > *From:* Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:00 AM > *To:* Nadeau, Gregory <gnadeau@pcgus.com> > *Cc:* Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com>; Tyszko, Jason > <jtyszko@USChamber.com>; Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>; Julie > Uranis <juranis@upcea.edu>; public-talent-signal@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Domain sketch > > > > Personally, I think we should evaluate whether this discussion and the > analysis at this level is actually appropriate for the work at hand. I am > not questioning its significance in the greater scheme of things. I am > questioning whether this is the right forum. These modeling issues have > been the fodder of people who have thought long (decades) and hard (with > great commitment/entrenchment/dissertations) and still can join up at the > bar and talk/argue for hours on end. > > > > So, does this conversation help us here; and, if so, how? If not, where > can people go to have at it? > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 7:47 AM Nadeau, Gregory <gnadeau@pcgus.com> wrote: > > I believe that this conversation is suffering from semantic disconnect. > > > > It we take the labels off and think just in terms of information > architecture, I assert that there are two main object types: > > 1. the generic thing that can achieved by more than one person > 2. the specific instance with information about the learner, issuer, > etc > > > > These two things are modelled quite differently. Once we agree on that, > we can talk about best terms and alternative labels. > > > > Is there an additional hard line, logical, structural difference on the > credential to competency spectrum? > > > > g. > > > > *From:* Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:34 AM > *To:* Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@uschamber.com> > *Cc:* Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>; Julie Uranis < > juranis@upcea.edu>; public-talent-signal@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Domain sketch > > > > Actually I want to be very clear. I am asserting the opposite of what > you are saying. I am saying competencies and credentials need to be kept > cleanly separate,. > > > > All I am saying is that there a large, formal, highly accepted credentials > (PhD from MIT in Information System Design) and small, tiny,niche > credentials (badge for attending *Alex Jackl's Data Emporium Seminar*) > and everything in between. > > > > The credential represents the assertion of a competency or competencies > using some assessment (whether by test or observation or seat time or or > or) form a particular organization. > > > > What I believe both Merrilea and myself are asserting is the example you > gave IS a credential/achievement assertion just of a smaller scope and > different type. > > > > > *** > > Alexander Jackl > > CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc. > > 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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=B1rHMoNccoiqdgf7B7%2BRWRSAV9C3SBqaJEiZR7xkFLs%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@uschamber.com> > wrote: > > Admittedly I’m seeing this more from the policy lens. Perhaps this is > just a semantic issue when it comes to organizing and structuring data. > However, to suggest a competency is a mini-credential would have large > policy implications that we would find problematic at the Chamber. It > could also inhibit some of the most important innovations coming out of the > competency movement. > > > > You mentioned Credential Engine, and I can see why they might frame > competencies from the vantage point of credentials given their mission and > scope, but I think there are other points of view about what competencies > are, how they are issued, and how they are asserted. To suggest they are > mini-credentials I fear would pose limitations on them or render them > indistinguishable from credentials. Currently, the T3 Innovation Network > is exploring how to support a distributed competency data exchange > supported by data standards and AI and ML tools, which is fundamentally > different than how you organize and share information about credentials. > > > > Again, I may be approaching this from the wrong point of view, and I’m > learning a lot based on this conversation. I’m not suggesting my point of > view is the right one, either. Thinking it through as we go. It just seems > like this is a critically important decision point that we might benefit > from spending more time on and bringing in more expert points of view, > particularly leaders in the competency movement. > > > > Jason > > > > *From:* Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:09 AM > *To:* Julie Uranis <juranis@upcea.edu> > *Cc:* Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@USChamber.com>; public-talent-signal@w3.org > *Subject:* Re: Domain sketch > > > > The way I see it, once an Educational Organization formally endows someone > with a "competency," they've just issued him a credential, just a smaller > scale one. I see the difference between competency and credential as being > the difference between a "course description" and "passing the course (or > required set of courses, if a degree), which fact is now formally recorded > and stored." > > > > Credentials go beyond degrees to include certifications, nanodegrees, > microcredentials and - where we're headed - certified competencies. This > concept of credential was something Credential Engine taught me. It is > very useful and cuts cleanly through a lot of issues surrounding the > proliferation of not-quite-degrees. The confusion comes because the term > "credential" is used so loosely in other, non-technical, non data > contexts. In some of these places "credential" is often used mean JUST a > conventional degree. > > > > Merrilea > > (tiny keyboard, pls excuse typos) > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 2:24 PM Julie Uranis <juranis@upcea.edu> 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> > *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 1:44 PM > *To:* 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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2FhasCredential&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=o8lt44%2FF4s7ITOfz4gpHelbpW2UbN0%2FS%2FuS1SlBcQWk%3D&reserved=0> > as a property of Person in schema.org > <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=tCYuDCI99sBMfA%2BZocd2UgZU9M3t3a6KNOeCzemV9M0%3D&reserved=0> > 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> <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 > <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=tCYuDCI99sBMfA%2BZocd2UgZU9M3t3a6KNOeCzemV9M0%3D&reserved=0> > 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 > <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=tCYuDCI99sBMfA%2BZocd2UgZU9M3t3a6KNOeCzemV9M0%3D&reserved=0> > . > > 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 > <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=tCYuDCI99sBMfA%2BZocd2UgZU9M3t3a6KNOeCzemV9M0%3D&reserved=0> > classes can be used as part of an assertion. I don't think anyone is doing > this in schema.org > <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=tCYuDCI99sBMfA%2BZocd2UgZU9M3t3a6KNOeCzemV9M0%3D&reserved=0>, > 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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=KrVZdI3dKYOKTIEVuCVvCucH6tvz48tzwtjSUZ6CX7c%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=yGN4zBw3u73kr%2Fm%2BFv0kWJyPGyw%2BAvoutw3xrRWHV7o%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 > <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=tCYuDCI99sBMfA%2BZocd2UgZU9M3t3a6KNOeCzemV9M0%3D&reserved=0> > 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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=RWPLlK%2FVZTAV8lCyIImUhOqJ%2FyPEhiZz6i1XJfOyJc0%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 > > 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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=B1rHMoNccoiqdgf7B7%2BRWRSAV9C3SBqaJEiZR7xkFLs%3D&reserved=0> > > > > > > > On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nadeau, Gregory <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: > > > > > > > > > > > *Greg Nadeau *Manager > > > > 781-370-1017 > > gnadeau@pcgus.com > > publicconsultinggroup.com > <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicconsultinggroup.com&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=3ViA9OaPBH9TTvzJRyAB%2BAUoDq6kkhU11QQMIiAqaAo%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> > *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 6:03 AM > *To:* 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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=tCYuDCI99sBMfA%2BZocd2UgZU9M3t3a6KNOeCzemV9M0%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=%2Bs8QGt5sPgc7WesNBw7dNVoO5e4XGw4oF7nhwlfkvcA%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=yvkgq14%2FOgrGtz2C9niPZNcDvydeF8cmwQhn%2BDSKyIE%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=yvkgq14%2FOgrGtz2C9niPZNcDvydeF8cmwQhn%2BDSKyIE%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wQ9Vyz%2Fg3zfutmF9CVfOAu%2Bk1r8tZ2g5VHxnImBiTQM%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=7%2BfUa5Z%2B%2Fp6fja2VyzLJRPo1%2FUa48X6cTmF%2FLmJwIAU%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=yvkgq14%2FOgrGtz2C9niPZNcDvydeF8cmwQhn%2BDSKyIE%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=yvkgq14%2FOgrGtz2C9niPZNcDvydeF8cmwQhn%2BDSKyIE%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wQ9Vyz%2Fg3zfutmF9CVfOAu%2Bk1r8tZ2g5VHxnImBiTQM%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=7%2BfUa5Z%2B%2Fp6fja2VyzLJRPo1%2FUa48X6cTmF%2FLmJwIAU%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=yvkgq14%2FOgrGtz2C9niPZNcDvydeF8cmwQhn%2BDSKyIE%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=yvkgq14%2FOgrGtz2C9niPZNcDvydeF8cmwQhn%2BDSKyIE%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wQ9Vyz%2Fg3zfutmF9CVfOAu%2Bk1r8tZ2g5VHxnImBiTQM%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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=7%2BfUa5Z%2B%2Fp6fja2VyzLJRPo1%2FUa48X6cTmF%2FLmJwIAU%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. > >
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2019 15:06:18 UTC