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

Re: Domain sketch

From: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 11:23:42 -0400
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Message-ID: <d05904d7-19a1-e7ab-a843-6a73f7fcf486@gmail.com>
We are actually running into the same  issue in developing 
competency-based learner profiles.  For right now, we plan to use the 
following:

  * If not externally validated, issuer is self.
  * If externally validated, then the issuer is noted.

Part of the reason I'm in these discussions is to see if a better 
solution emerges.

Merrilea

On 8/20/2019 10:59 AM, Tyszko, Jason wrote:
>
> Everyone’s comments have been super helpful.  Thank you for helping me 
> understand the nuances.  And I believe Greg is right, a lot of this 
> has to do with  semantic disconnect more than anything.  I guess this 
> is bound to happen when you have non-technical people in the group.  
> Thank you for bearing with me.
>
> Another thought I had—not sure how immediately relevant to the work at 
> hand so we can parking lot this—is how do we deal with competencies 
> that are self-declared by the individual?  For example, if someone 
> wanted to organize their e-portfolio or resume and make it 
> competency-based, but also based on a data standard, what would they 
> be considered to be?  I understand they can pull in data from 
> organization that awarded, instilled, or validated a competency, but 
> if they self-declare, can that be captured as well?  Our T3 work will 
> be taking us in this direction which is why I ask.
>
> Jason
>
> *From:*Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:52 AM
> *To:* Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@USChamber.com>
> *Cc:* Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>; public-talent-signal@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: Domain sketch
>
> Jason, yes, you describe well the status on the ground. I think the 
> key is in phrases like your "recognize and certify 10 competencies 
> attained".  To be of any value and to be communicated to others, these 
> _recognitions_ take the form of some kind of _tangible, and hopefully 
> verifiable, assertion_–i.e., award of a certification, badge/open 
> badge, micro-credential etc. For example, in my courses at the 
> University of Washington, I could have offered badges for successful 
> completion of various logical units of the class or even specific 
> competencies. I would not be _directly awarding competencies_ but 
> rather awarding _tangible recognitions of achievement_ (in other 
> words, some form of (earned) credential).  So, in the end, the holder 
> of a UW Bachelor of Science in Informatics (credential) also holds an 
> array of more granular open badges, certifications etc (all 
> credentials). For a non-completer of the BS in Informatics, they 
> nevertheless walk away with an array of these more granular 
> credentials (tangible recognitions). What you describe, Jason, is this 
> movement toward recognition of more discrete units of achievement in 
> all sorts of formal and informal contexts.
>
> So, what's the big difference between an organization directly 
> awarding competencies and awarding tangible recognition of achievement 
> of competencies? It's quite significant in domain modeling. While an 
> organization may _instill_ a competency through a learning opportunity 
> or _validate_ its attainment in a tangible form (however attained) 
> through some form of assessment, that organization does not directly 
> _award_ the competency.
>
> Stuart
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:20 AM Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@uschamber.com 
> <mailto:jtyszko@uschamber.com>> wrote:
>
>     Phil,
>
>     If I may, I think where Julie and I are coming from is
>     organizations like universities and employers are trying to get in
>     the business of directly awarding competencies. In this way,
>     someone could complete an assignment, course, or assessment and be
>     recognized as having a competency without having anything to do
>     with a credential.  For example, a company can provide a training
>     program as part of its onboarding process and recognize and
>     certify 10 competencies attained.  No credential may be needed to
>     bundle them.  This is the environment we are building towards.  At
>     the very least, the work we are pursuing here should not preclude
>     those options in the future.  Does that help?
>
>     Jason
>
>     *From:* Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk
>     <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>>
>     *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 6:10 AM
>     *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org <mailto:public-talent-signal@w3.org>
>     *Subject:* Re: Domain sketch
>
>     Thanks Julie, that is useful.
>
>     What I am struggling with is what it means to "award a competency"
>     as opposed to "award a credential that recognizes competency".
>
>     And, yes your unpacking from my email is useful, but I would
>     unpack further: "A student may not fulfill all the requirements
>     for a credential but still be eligible for a credential that
>     recognizes any competency that they have demonstrated"
>
>     There may be some difference in understanding of what a competency
>     is, I'm trying to write something to get to the bottom of that.
>
>     Phil
>
>     On 19/08/2019 19:17, Julie Uranis wrote:
>
>         Hi everyone-
>
>         I’ve been lurking but Jason’s email inspired me to chime in.
>         I’m +1’ing his comment, that is if his interpretation of “A
>         credential can be offered by an EducationalOrganization but a
>         competency cannot be” is accurate. I share his concern with
>         this statement.
>
>         EducationalOrganization must be able to offer both credentials
>         and competencies understanding that they can be of same class.
>         To echo and append Jason, this is both the way the field is
>         moving and is a reality for the millions of students that
>         leave higher education without credentials but with
>         competencies. Being inclusive of these conditions would fit
>         with known use cases and student characteristics.
>
>         To pull in your last email, “Organizations can offer
>         assessments that assess competencies, and if passed lead to
>         the award of credentials.” I think we need to parse this a bit
>         more. Organizations can offer assessments that assess
>         competencies that may or may not lead to a credential – and
>         the student may never complete the full credential, so the
>         credential needs to be recognized as an item unto itself.
>
>         If this interpretation is wrong and my email unhelpful I’m
>         happy to return to my lurker status. J
>
>         Julie
>
>         *From:* Tyszko, Jason [mailto:jtyszko@USChamber.com]
>         *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 2:02 PM
>         *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org
>         <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://schema.org/hasCredential> as a property of Person in
>         schema.org <http://schema.org> is a significant change from that.
>
>             While a relativist view could assert that the any
>             distinction could be semantic and change in context, I
>             continue to assert that there is a hard logical
>             distinction between Achievement and Assertion,
>
>         True, but they can be modeled with similar terms. There is a
>         hard logical distinction between a Person and a Book, but they
>         both have a name. There is a logical distinction between a
>         TextBook and a Course, but many of their properties and
>         attributes are the same. Achievement and Assertion can be
>         modeled as different profiles drawn from the same term set.
>
>             but not between Competency and Credential.
>
>             While it is true that Credentials can have Competencies,
>             they are in fact the same class of entity and often have
>             recursive associations between them.
>
>         With the simple distinction that a credential can require a
>         competency but a competency cannot require a credential.
>
>         A credential can be offered by an EducationalOrganization but
>         a competency cannot be.
>
>         Outside of learner records, credentials and competencies are
>         quite different.
>
>         Phil
>
>             In short:
>
>             Achievement Description types include Credentials,
>             Competencies, Skills.  While historically different in
>             some contexts, increasingly these terms are blurred and
>             there is no logical/structural difference between them.
>
>             Achievement Assertions can refer to Achievement
>             Descriptions and include specific PII information about
>             the Learner and Issuer, and can include specific instance
>             information like Evidence, Endorsement, Result, and
>             Verification.
>
>             Greg Nadeau
>
>             Chair, IMS Global CLR
>
>             Chair, IEEE CM4LTS
>
>             *From:* Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>             <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>             *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 12:59 PM
>             *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org
>             <mailto:public-talent-signal@w3.org>
>             *Subject:* Re: Domain sketch
>
>             I agree mostly with Alex (and Stuart's reply). I want to
>             add some consideration of context into the mix and think
>             about reuse of terms in different contexts (which is how
>             schema.org <http://schema.org> works).
>
>             In short, I think the distinction between assertions and
>             descriptions comes from putting circles around different
>             parts of the domain sketch (different profiles of the same
>             set of terms, if you prefer). This is part of what I mean
>             when I say that it is not a domain model because there are
>             different perspectives on it. I think what Alex describes
>             is one (valid) set of perspectives.
>
>             In achievement descriptions, competency is separated from
>             credential in most of the work that we are following
>             (CTDL, OpenBadges BadgeClass, ESCO etc.), and it needs to
>             be. When describing an EducationalOccupationalCredential
>             you need to be able to say what competencies are being
>             credentialed. That's why the competencyRequired property
>             of EducationalOccupationalCredential got into schema.org
>             <http://schema.org>.
>
>             It's also useful to separate competencies from credentials
>             when describing learning resources. Then it is necessary
>             to be able to show an alignment to a learning objective
>             (i.e. a competence) separately from credentials, in order
>             to promote reuse in different contexts.
>
>             But in other contexts the schema.org <http://schema.org>
>             classes can be used as part of an assertion. I don't think
>             anyone is doing this in schema.org <http://schema.org>,
>             but if I were to write, as part of a JSON-LD CV (and I'm
>             making up a couple of properties):
>
>             {
>
>                 "@id":"http://people.pjjk.net/phil#id"  <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.pjjk.net%2Fphil%23id&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=OjN7d4yOZAz%2FEOPSM5UUJhz5lzZxgf3S0PR%2BN2woZAM%3D&reserved=0>,
>
>                 "hasCredential": {
>
>                    "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
>
>                    "name": "PhD in Physics",
>
>                    "issuedBy":"https://www.bristol.ac.uk/"  <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bristol.ac.uk%2F&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=VfvNkGLhvdwwmy%2FKy26UmLyVgXOENIFX%2Bhb2RHlNgFc%3D&reserved=0>,
>
>                 },
>
>                 "hasSkill": "Educational metadata modeling"   //a literal representing a competence, could be DefinedTerm
>
>             }
>
>             then I am making achievement assertions. (And in order to
>             make these assertions verifiable you would have to wrap
>             them up into some collection of assertions and provide the
>             means of verification.)
>
>             I agree with Alex that
>
>                 Once you have a record that matches a person with a
>                 "competency" or "achievement description", and
>                 "evidence" or "assertion" from an "approved"
>                 organization that that person has either passed an
>                 assessment or done something that shows that... you
>                 have an "achievement assertion"
>
>             But not with
>
>                 or "credential".
>
>             As Stuart says, to date in schema.org <http://schema.org>
>             the EducationalOccupationalCredential class has been used
>             to represent a credential offered (something that "may be
>             awarded") in the sense of being the thing that the
>             University of Bristol says I can sign up to if I want to
>             study for a PhD in physics, not the specific PhD that I
>             hold. So this is an example of a
>             EducationalOccupationalCredential that is not an
>             achievement assertion:
>
>             {
>
>                 "@type": "EducationalOccupationalProgram",
>
>                 "url":"http://www.bristol.ac.uk/study/postgraduate/2019/sci/phd-physics/"  <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bristol.ac.uk%2Fstudy%2Fpostgraduate%2F2019%2Fsci%2Fphd-physics%2F&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=FNiUXEKEslmkB0C4wUuVorWHKnGcPkcIBJWrOd3vowo%3D&reserved=0>
>
>                 "educationalCredentialAwarded": {
>
>                    "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
>
>                    "name": "PhD in Physics"
>
>                 }
>
>             }
>
>             Phil
>
>             On 19/08/2019 16:36, Alex Jackl wrote:
>
>                 I agree with Greg that the distinction between the
>                 "achievement description" and the "achievement
>                 assertion" is critical, but in this case I think we
>                 are once again running aground on the semantic reefs.
>
>                 If we think of an "achievement description" as a
>                 description of a Knowledge, Skill, Aptitude, or
>                 Experience (either inside of some taxonomy or not)
>                 then it matches cleanly what most people mean by
>                 competency.
>
>                 It typically does not include the assessment or test
>                 that would "prove" "provide evidence" that that
>                 competency exists with some person.  That matches with
>                 what people usually refer to as an "assessment" or
>                 "evidence".
>
>                 Once you have a record that matches a person with a
>                 "competency" or "achievement description", and
>                 "evidence" or "assertion" from an "approved"
>                 organization that that person has either passed an
>                 assessment or done something that shows that... you
>                 have an "achievement assertion" or "credential".
>
>                 I think it is that simple.  :-)    Now - I know each
>                 of these categories have hierarchies and taxonomies
>                 and differing levels of granularity and different ways
>                 t o represent an assessment or organizations
>                 trustworthiness  or authority, but this model can be
>                 represented by what Phil is describing.
>
>                 What am I missing?   I see no issue with the following
>                 semantic equivalences:
>
>                 competency <-> achievement  description
>
>                 assessment <-> evidence (I understand that not all
>                 evidence takes the form of a "test" but you are
>                 assessing somehow!)
>
>                 credential <-> achievement assertion
>
>                 ***
>
>                 Alexander Jackl
>
>                 CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc.
>
>                 alex@bardicsystems.com <mailto:alex@bardicsystems.com>
>
>                 M: 508.395.2836
>
>                 F: 617.812.6020
>
>                 http://bardicsystems.com
>                 <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fbardicsystems.com%2F&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=Pt21CQ4Vt9zb6dc%2FsndTH9APIJ0KdXfGs1M9fss%2FzoE%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>                 On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nadeau, Gregory
>                 <gnadeau@pcgus.com <mailto:gnadeau@pcgus.com>> wrote:
>
>                     Friends,
>
>                     I challenge the aspect of the model that separates
>                     a competency from credential.  I believe that both
>                     credentials as expressed by CTDL and competencies
>                     as CASE (as well as badges and micro-credentials)
>                     are all overlapping labels and structures for
>                     expressing the general Achievement Description. 
>                     Degree, credential, micro-credential, badge,
>                     skill, knowledge, ability, course objective,
>                     academic standard, and learning target are all
>                     labels for this concept without accepted
>                     boundaries between them and distinctions.  The
>                     more important distinction from an information
>                     architecture standpoint is separation of the
>                     general, linked-data public Achievement
>                     Description from the Achievement Assertion that
>                     contains PII data about the Learner:
>
>                     https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/bSatpUf4dqQ3J0rWNtXXEL35xDDZHKYE6NlcobcNIo-uVYMV5yfxlyWCcjGj55e9RwdGh6sZm8XIQUT6OX-eC-9KRIU30DcRLpKYFxrrmVgG7mtrtEi5LrgOOhSMF5oZ_x8P1EX6v_k
>
>                     **
>
>                     	
>
>                     *Greg Nadeau
>                     *Manager
>
>                     781-370-1017
>
>                     gnadeau@pcgus.com <mailto:gnadeau@pcgus.com>
>
>                     publicconsultinggroup.com
>                     <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicconsultinggroup.com&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=S7wwp3EIiOQrR9PHMTok%2BJU%2B5G79QufCB4%2BFBmCdvYw%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>                     **
>
>                     This message (including any attachments) contains
>                     confidential information intended for a specific
>                     individual and purpose and is protected by law. 
>                     If you are not the intended recipient, you should
>                     delete this message and are hereby notified that
>                     any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this
>                     message, or the taking of any action based on it,
>                     is strictly prohibited.
>
>                     *From:* Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk
>                     <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>>
>                     *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 6:03 AM
>                     *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org
>                     <mailto:public-talent-signal@w3.org>
>                     *Subject:* Domain sketch
>
>                     Hello all, I got a little feedback about the
>                     domain sketch that I've shown a couple of times,
>                     and have altered it accordingly, and tried to
>                     clarify what is and isn't currently in schema.org
>                     <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=79ki8sv52msOXfEk%2FpXVMt%2BzPyXnmFNfn2HIF8MRiuA%3D&reserved=0>.
>
>
>                     Here it is again. I'm thinking about putting it on
>                     the wiki, and hoping that, along with the issue
>                     list
>                     <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fcommunity%2Ftalent-signal%2Fwiki%2FIssues%2C_use_cases_and_requirements%23Issues_open_for_consideration&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=K4ZA3A2qLVNx2nK34H15DTqyddggE5Eyh69qUbZWyzA%3D&reserved=0>,
>                     it might serve as a useful way of introducing what
>                     we are about and what we are doing.
>
>                     I really want to stress that it is not intended to
>                     be a complete or formal domain model, nor is it
>                     intended to be prescriptive. (I think that for a
>                     domain as big as this, with so many possible
>                     perspectives, it is premature to try to get
>                     consensus on a complete formal model now, if
>                     indeed that will ever be possible.)
>
>                     I would welcome feedback on whether this sketch
>                     helps, and how it might be improved, what needs
>                     further explanation, or anything else.
>
>                     Regards, Phil
>
>                     -- 
>
>                     Phil Barker
>                     <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.pjjk.net%2Fphil&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wp%2BKWrKmRT0kMuHaN5opZwjB9NeM1VVMjuoBFlSDlk8%3D&reserved=0>.
>                     http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>                     <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.pjjk.net%2Fphil&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wp%2BKWrKmRT0kMuHaN5opZwjB9NeM1VVMjuoBFlSDlk8%3D&reserved=0>
>                     CETIS LLP
>                     <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cetis.org.uk&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=j5895k0tabo83ffun7xsGeEQ26iYShNmWm6lG3BGxz4%3D&reserved=0>:
>                     a cooperative consultancy for innovation in
>                     education technology.
>                     PJJK Limited
>                     <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pjjk.co.uk&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wVq0gqKNSar%2BQ12HwkaRPn7oeuynxosJ%2FcHIzXjDzto%3D&reserved=0>:
>                     technology to enhance learning; information
>                     systems for education.
>
>                     CETIS is a co-operative limited liability
>                     partnership, registered in England number OC399090
>                     PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a
>                     private limited company, number SC569282.
>
>             -- 
>
>             Phil Barker
>             <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.pjjk.net%2Fphil&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wp%2BKWrKmRT0kMuHaN5opZwjB9NeM1VVMjuoBFlSDlk8%3D&reserved=0>.
>             http://people.pjjk.net/phil
>             <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.pjjk.net%2Fphil&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wp%2BKWrKmRT0kMuHaN5opZwjB9NeM1VVMjuoBFlSDlk8%3D&reserved=0>
>             CETIS LLP
>             <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.cetis.org.uk&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=j5895k0tabo83ffun7xsGeEQ26iYShNmWm6lG3BGxz4%3D&reserved=0>:
>             a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education
>             technology.
>             PJJK Limited
>             <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.pjjk.co.uk&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C8b30741ac8e04b5fa3fc08d724c6ac40%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=wVq0gqKNSar%2BQ12HwkaRPn7oeuynxosJ%2FcHIzXjDzto%3D&reserved=0>:
>             technology to enhance learning; information systems for
>             education.
>
>             CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership,
>             registered in England number OC399090
>             PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private
>             limited company, number SC569282.
>
>         -- 
>
>         Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>.
>         http://people.pjjk.net/phil <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>
>         CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative
>         consultancy for innovation in education technology.
>         PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance
>         learning; information systems for education.
>
>         CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership,
>         registered in England number OC399090
>         PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited
>         company, number SC569282.
>
>     -- 
>
>     Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>.
>     http://people.pjjk.net/phil <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.
>
-- 

Merrilea J. Mayo, Ph.D.
Mayo Enterprises, LLC
12101 Sheets Farm Rd.
North Potomac, MD 20878

merrileamayo@gmail.com
https://merrileamayo.com/ < >
240-304-0439 (cell)
301-977-2599 (landline)
Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2019 15:25:17 UTC

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