Re: Domain sketch

I think the only critical “object” that would need to be included is the assessment or evidence structure that “proves” the the person achieved the thing.  

It sounds like we are talking about the same things though which is good: 
Competency <-> Achievement Description <-> thing that can be achieved/description of a KSAE

And 

Credential <-> Achievement Assertion <-> instance connected to a learner 

Sent from my iPhone

> On Aug 20, 2019, at 10:47 AM, Nadeau, Gregory <gnadeau@pcgus.com> wrote:
> 
> I believe that this conversation is suffering from semantic disconnect. 
>  
> It we take the labels off and think just in terms of information architecture, I assert that there are two main object types: 
> the generic thing that can achieved by more than one person
> the specific instance with information about the learner, issuer, etc
>  
> These two things are modelled quite differently.    Once we agree on that, we can talk about best terms and alternative labels.
>  
> Is there an additional hard line, logical, structural difference on the credential to competency spectrum?
>  
> g.
>  
> From: Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:34 AM
> To: Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@uschamber.com>
> Cc: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>; Julie Uranis <juranis@upcea.edu>; public-talent-signal@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Domain sketch
>  
> Actually I want to be very clear.   I am asserting the opposite of what you are saying.  I am saying competencies and credentials need to be kept cleanly separate,.  
>  
> All I am saying is that there a large, formal, highly accepted credentials (PhD from MIT in Information System Design) and small, tiny,niche credentials (badge for attending  Alex Jackl's Data Emporium Seminar) and everything in between.  
>  
> The credential represents the assertion of a competency or competencies using some assessment (whether by test or observation or seat time or or or) form a particular organization.  
>  
> What I believe both Merrilea and myself are asserting is the example you gave IS a credential/achievement assertion  just of a smaller scope and different type. 
>  
> 
> ***
> Alexander Jackl
> CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc. 
> alex@bardicsystems.com
> M: 508.395.2836
> F: 617.812.6020
> http://bardicsystems.com 
>  
>  
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 10:26 AM Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@uschamber.com> wrote:
> Admittedly I’m seeing this more from the policy lens.  Perhaps this is just a semantic issue when it comes to organizing and structuring data.  However, to suggest a competency is a mini-credential would have large policy implications that we would find problematic at the Chamber.  It could also inhibit some of the most important innovations coming out of the competency movement. 
>  
> You mentioned Credential Engine, and I can see why they might frame competencies from the vantage point of credentials given their mission and scope, but I think there are other points of view about what competencies are, how they are issued, and how they are asserted.  To suggest they are mini-credentials I fear would pose limitations on them or render them indistinguishable from credentials.  Currently, the T3 Innovation Network is exploring how to support a distributed competency data exchange supported by data standards and AI and ML tools, which is fundamentally different than how you organize and share information about credentials. 
>  
> Again, I may be approaching this from the wrong point of view, and I’m learning a lot based on this conversation.  I’m not suggesting my point of view is the right one, either.  Thinking it through as we go. It just seems like this is a critically important decision point that we might benefit from spending more time on and bringing in more expert points of view, particularly leaders in the competency movement.
>  
> Jason  
>  
> From: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com> 
> Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:09 AM
> To: Julie Uranis <juranis@upcea.edu>
> Cc: Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@USChamber.com>; public-talent-signal@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Domain sketch
>  
> The way I see it, once an Educational Organization formally endows someone with a "competency," they've just issued him a credential, just a smaller scale one.  I see the difference between competency and credential as being the difference between a "course description" and "passing the course (or required set of courses, if a degree), which fact is now formally recorded and stored."
>  
> Credentials go beyond degrees to include certifications, nanodegrees, microcredentials and - where we're headed - certified competencies.  This concept of credential was something Credential Engine taught me.  It is very useful and cuts cleanly through a lot of issues surrounding the proliferation of not-quite-degrees.  The confusion comes because the term "credential" is used so loosely in other, non-technical, non data contexts.  In some of these places "credential" is often used mean JUST a conventional degree.
>  
> Merrilea
> (tiny keyboard, pls excuse typos)
>  
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019, 2:24 PM Julie Uranis <juranis@upcea.edu> wrote:
> Hi everyone-
> I’ve been lurking but Jason’s email inspired me to chime in. I’m +1’ing his comment, that is if his interpretation of “A credential can be offered by an EducationalOrganization but a competency cannot be” is accurate. I share his concern with this statement.
>  
> EducationalOrganization must be able to offer both credentials and competencies understanding that they can be of same class. To echo and append Jason, this is both the way the field is moving and is a reality for the millions of students that leave higher education without credentials but with competencies. Being inclusive of these conditions would fit with known use cases and student characteristics.
>  
> To pull in your last email, “Organizations can offer assessments that assess competencies, and if passed lead to the award of credentials.” I think we need to parse this a bit more. Organizations can offer assessments that assess competencies that may or may not lead to a credential – and the student may never complete the full credential, so the credential needs to be recognized as an item unto itself.
>  
> If this interpretation is wrong and my email unhelpful I’m happy to return to my lurker status.  J
>  
> Julie
>  
> From: Tyszko, Jason [mailto:jtyszko@USChamber.com] 
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 2:02 PM
> To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Domain sketch
>  
> Phil,
>  
> I’m coming in late to the conversation, and I’m probably not understanding that context, but I thought I would chime in anyway, just in case.  The statement  below caught my attention:
> A credential can be offered by an EducationalOrganization but a competency cannot be.
> 
> Are we suggesting that, per the way schemas are currently setup, an EducationalOrganization cannot offer competencies in lieu of credentials?  If so, that strikes me as potentially limiting and not necessarily reflective of where the field is going. 
>  
> In T3 and in our other work, employers, for instance, are increasingly interested in competency-based hiring outside of credentialing.  Competencies are increasingly needed to stand alone so employer, education providers, workforce trainers, and others, can offer competencies as part of a learner or worker record.  This is also consistent with where the university registrars are going in the U.S.  From where the Chamber stands, credentials can include competencies, but competencies are not exclusively found in a credential.  
>  
> Not sure if my comments add value given where the conversation was going, but in order for us to support innovations in the talent marketplace, we need a data infrastructure that makes this distinction clear.  Happy to walk this back if I’m off track.
>  
> Jason
>  
> From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> 
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 1:44 PM
> To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Domain sketch
>  
>  
> 
> On 19/08/2019 18:19, Nadeau, Gregory wrote:
> My understanding of CTDL is that it only models Credentials as Achievement Descriptions, and does not include models for PII Assertion Records.
> True, but the addition of hasCredential as a property of Person in 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> 
> Sent: Monday, August 19, 2019 12:59 PM
> To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Domain sketch
>  
> I agree mostly with Alex (and Stuart's reply). I want to add some consideration of context into the mix and think about reuse of terms in different contexts (which is how schema.org 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.
> 
> 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 classes can be used as part of an assertion. I don't think anyone is doing this in 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",
>    "hasCredential": {
>       "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
>       "name": "PhD in Physics",
>       "issuedBy": "https://www.bristol.ac.uk/",
>    },
>    "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 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/"
>    "educationalCredentialAwarded": {
>       "@type": "EducationalOccupationalCredential",
>       "name": "PhD in Physics"
>    }
> }
> Phil
> 
> On 19/08/2019 16:36, Alex Jackl wrote:
> 
> I agree with Greg that the distinction between the "achievement description" and the "achievement assertion" is critical, but in this case I think we are once again running aground on the semantic reefs.
>  
> If we think of an "achievement description" as a description of a Knowledge, Skill, Aptitude, or Experience (either inside of some taxonomy or not) then it matches cleanly what most people mean by competency.   
>  
> It typically does not include the assessment or test that would "prove" "provide evidence" that that competency exists with some person.  That matches with what people usually refer to as an "assessment" or "evidence".  
>  
> Once you have a record that matches a person with a "competency" or "achievement description", and "evidence" or "assertion" from an "approved" organization that that person has either passed an assessment or done something that shows that... you have an "achievement assertion" or "credential".
>  
> I think it is that simple.  :-)    Now - I know each of these categories have hierarchies and taxonomies and differing levels of granularity and different ways t o represent an assessment or organizations trustworthiness  or authority, but this model can be represented by what Phil is describing. 
>  
> What am I missing?   I see no issue with the following semantic equivalences: 
> competency <-> achievement  description 
> assessment <-> evidence (I understand that not all evidence takes the form of a "test" but you are assessing somehow!) 
> credential <-> achievement assertion 
>  
>  
> ***
> Alexander Jackl
> CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc. 
> alex@bardicsystems.com
> M: 508.395.2836
> F: 617.812.6020
> http://bardicsystems.com 
>  
>  
> On Mon, Aug 19, 2019 at 11:20 AM Nadeau, Gregory <gnadeau@pcgus.com> wrote:
> Friends,
>  
> I challenge the aspect of the model that separates a competency from credential.  I believe that both credentials as expressed by CTDL and competencies as CASE (as well as badges and micro-credentials) are all overlapping labels and structures for expressing the general Achievement Description.  Degree, credential, micro-credential, badge, skill, knowledge, ability, course objective, academic standard, and learning target are all labels for this concept without accepted boundaries between them and distinctions.  The more important distinction from an information architecture standpoint is separation of the general, linked-data public Achievement Description from the Achievement Assertion that contains PII data about the Learner:
>  
>  
>  
>  
> Greg Nadeau
> Manager
>  
> 781-370-1017
> gnadeau@pcgus.com
> publicconsultinggroup.com
>  
>  
>  
>  
> This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose and is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message and are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited.
>  
>  
>  
> From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> 
> Sent: Thursday, August 15, 2019 6:03 AM
> To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
> Subject: Domain sketch
>  
> Hello all, I got a little feedback about the domain sketch that I've shown a couple of times, and have altered it accordingly, and tried to clarify what is and isn't currently in schema.org.
> 
> Here it is again. I'm thinking about putting it on the wiki, and hoping that, along with the issue list, 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. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
> CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
> PJJK Limited: 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
> CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
> PJJK Limited: 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
> CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
> PJJK Limited: 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.