- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 16:15:38 +0100
- To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
- Message-ID: <0d168f68-b6d6-f99f-c997-773f40d1b2a7@pjjk.co.uk>
It has been useful to mark an area of the domain with "here be dragons"
so that we know not to stray too far into it when addressing other
issues. -- Phil
On 20/08/2019 16:05, Stuart Sutton wrote:
> :-) 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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:stuartasutton@gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 11:00 AM
> *To:* Nadeau, Gregory <gnadeau@pcgus.com <mailto:gnadeau@pcgus.com>>
> *Cc:* Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com
> <mailto:alex@bardicsystems.com>>; Tyszko, Jason
> <jtyszko@USChamber.com>; Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com
> <mailto:merrileamayo@gmail.com>>; Julie Uranis <juranis@upcea.edu
> <mailto:juranis@upcea.edu>>; public-talent-signal@w3.org
> <mailto: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
> <mailto: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
> <mailto:alex@bardicsystems.com>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:34 AM
> *To:* Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@uschamber.com
> <mailto:jtyszko@uschamber.com>>
> *Cc:* Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com
> <mailto:merrileamayo@gmail.com>>; Julie Uranis
> <juranis@upcea.edu <mailto:juranis@upcea.edu>>;
> public-talent-signal@w3.org <mailto: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 <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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=B1rHMoNccoiqdgf7B7%2BRWRSAV9C3SBqaJEiZR7xkFLs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Tyszko, Jason
> <jtyszko@uschamber.com <mailto: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
> <mailto:merrileamayo@gmail.com>>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:09 AM
> *To:* Julie Uranis <juranis@upcea.edu
> <mailto:juranis@upcea.edu>>
> *Cc:* Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@USChamber.com
> <mailto:jtyszko@USChamber.com>>;
> public-talent-signal@w3.org
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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
> <mailto:jtyszko@USChamber.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 2:02 PM
> *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org
> <mailto: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://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>
> <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
> <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
> <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%7C177314bb748247517c3e08d7257b9d43%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=B1rHMoNccoiqdgf7B7%2BRWRSAV9C3SBqaJEiZR7xkFLs%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:
>
> **
>
>
>
>
> *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%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
> <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%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.
>
--
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 15:16:05 UTC