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 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

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