- 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