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

Re: Domain sketch

From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 11:10:17 +0100
To: Chris Houston <thecjhouston@gmail.com>, Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com>
Cc: "Tyszko, Jason" <jtyszko@uschamber.com>, Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>, "public-talent-signal@w3.org" <public-talent-signal@w3.org>
Message-ID: <d3eb406a-4981-7e38-0cf6-af4c72bc5ee8@pjjk.co.uk>
Hello all, I am happy to keep this conversation ticking over so long as 
it doesn't take up all of our energy and deflect us from addressing 
other easier issues.

Thank you for the analogies Chris, I would like to push as little on 
what I think is the core of what you've written:

> The main point Greg was trying to make is a "platonic forms 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms>" one.  You have the 
> 'ideal form of a thing', and then you have the instantiation of the 
> 'thing' in the real world.
>
These platonic forms can be useful, we used something similar when 
describing courses in schema.org as Course <https://schema.org/Course> 
and CourseInstance <https://schema.org/CourseInstance> in schema.org, 
and there is a similar distinction going on with schema.org 
exampleOfWork <https://schema.org/exampleOfWork> used to map from a 
story as a CreativeWork (the platonic ideal) to an edition (or copy) of 
a Book (a physical instantiation of it).
> achievementDescription = Platonic Form
> assertion = instance of the form
>
>     The /achievementDescription/ is something that can be achieved,
>     learned, demonstrated, gained, etc.  It is the independent form. 
>     It's a generic term and can represent a Degree (Credential), a
>     Course, a Certificate, Competency, Assessment, etc.  The
>     achievementDescription should stand alone and not be required to
>     be tied to a student.  This would be like the Catalog of
>     courses/degrees published for the Academic Year.  It lives on its
>     own regardless of if a student actually takes a course or not.
>
I think the core of our difference is whether an achievementDescription 
"is something that can be achieved..." or "the /description/ of 
something that can be achieved...". From the education end of talent 
signaling, learning a skill is different from learning the description 
of a skill (learners do one, educators do the other), so it pays to 
distinguish them. We often elide the two because, as with many things, 
when you resolve an identifier for an achievement you would expect to 
receive the description of the thing, not the thing itself.
>
>     The /Assertion/ is the instantiation of the
>     achievementDescription.  This is where the Student comes in to the
>     picture and is a record of the student learning or 'achieving
>     knowledge' at a certain time/place in the real world. It can
>     include a score or performance level and other meta data about the
>     instance of the achievement.
>
I think there is another difference in thinking here, between an entity, 
or a term referring to an entity and statements that can be made using 
such terms. So I would say that an assertion is a statement along the 
lines of "X says Y has skill Z" (where X may equal Y for self-made 
assertions) I could also say "here is a description of Z"

I think we are probably talking about the same things in two different ways.

Does this work?

    Achievement Description: a set of statements about the nature of
    something that can be achieved

    Achievement Assertion: a set of statements about what someone(or
    something) has achieved

Phil


On 21/08/2019 23:45, Chris Houston wrote:
> A few points to add to the discussion.
>
> Self-issued or self-asserted credentials and achievements is already a 
> thing today and there is still a place/need for this, probably using 
> the same data structures.
>
> Without getting too deep into the 'is a competency a credential' 
> discussion, I would at the very least say a competency can be awarded 
> (recorded) to a student by a school in the same way a course can be 
> completed and appears on a transcript provided to the student by the 
> institution.
> /
> /
> /I have a nickel instead of a full dollar.  When I get enough nickels, 
> I'll have a dollar. /
> Another way of saying this is when I earn (or have demonstrated) 
> enough competencies I could be awarded a credential.  Today, in higher 
> ed, you take courses in a program and earn credits. Eventually you 
> earn enough credits to graduate the program and earn a degree.  
> Historically speaking, the credential is the degree in this overly 
> simplified view.   Credits = Nickels and Credential = Dollar
>
> The main point Greg was trying to make is a "platonic forms 
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms>" one.  You have the 
> 'ideal form of a thing', and then you have the instantiation of the 
> 'thing' in the real world.
>
> achievementDescription = Platonic Form
> assertion = instance of the form
>
>     The /achievementDescription/ is something that can be achieved,
>     learned, demonstrated, gained, etc.  It is the independent form. 
>     It's a generic term and can represent a Degree (Credential), a
>     Course, a Certificate, Competency, Assessment, etc.  The
>     achievementDescription should stand alone and not be required to
>     be tied to a student.  This would be like the Catalog of
>     courses/degrees published for the Academic Year.  It lives on its
>     own regardless of if a student actually takes a course or not.
>
>     The /Assertion/ is the instantiation of the
>     achievementDescription.  This is where the Student comes in to the
>     picture and is a record of the student learning or 'achieving
>     knowledge' at a certain time/place in the real world. It can
>     include a score or performance level and other meta data about the
>     instance of the achievement.
>
>
> [note: this is not a perfect analogy, but close.]
>
> If you have 360 students, you don't teach 360 individualized courses 
> for the same subject/topic.  You teach the 1 course to the 360 
> students.  [personalized learning aside].   The course is the form.  
> There could be 360 assertions with a letter grade on each representing 
> the completion (and passing of) the course.  Each record should 
> contain the same achievementDescription (in this case, the course).  
>  However, each record would have different students and results.
>
> Any student record can be an /achievementDescription/ *asserted *by 
> the institution to the student.  These achievementDescriptions can 
> roll up....to other achievementDescriptions, just like how a set of 
> courses can roll up to a program, or a set of competencies can roll up 
> to a course.  If you achieve enough learning, under specific 
> circumstances, you can earn a Credential.  But the Credential can be 
> described, data-wise, in the same structure as an assessment  or 
> competency.  And the record of proof that an individual has earned the 
> credential can be the same as well.
>
> Essentially, the /nickel/ and the /dollar/ are both forms of US 
> currency, so we are talking the same language.  In my opinion, we need 
> a common currency when building an ecosystem of learning for the 21st 
> century.
>
> achievementDescription - anything that can be learned or achieved.
> assertion - proof, or a record of an individual earning/demonstrating 
> the achievementDescription
> credential - an achievementDescription of an elevated status based on 
> the issuing party, and in general based on accreditation or similar 
> quality approving bodies.
>
> - Chris Houston, eLumen
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:20 AM Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com 
> <mailto:alex@bardicsystems.com>> wrote:
>
>     I think self-certified credentials are absolutely a legitimate
>     thing.  It is just like a credential from a college except instead
>     of the certifying authority being the university it is the data
>     subject themselves.
>
>     The data structure would be the same although many would take
>     self-certified achievement assertions with a grain of salt or ten.
>      :-)
>
>     Sent from my iPhone
>
>     On Aug 20, 2019, at 10:59 AM, Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@uschamber.com
>     <mailto:jtyszko@uschamber.com>> 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
>>     <mailto:stuartasutton@gmail.com>>
>>     *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:52 AM
>>     *To:* Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@USChamber.com
>>     <mailto:jtyszko@USChamber.com>>
>>     *Cc:* Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk
>>     <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>>; public-talent-signal@w3.org
>>     <mailto: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:
>>
>>                         <image001.png>
>>
>>                         **
>>
>>                         <image002.jpg>
>>
>>                         	
>>
>>                         *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.
>>
>>                         <image003.jpg>
>>
>>                         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.
>>
-- 

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 Thursday, 22 August 2019 10:10:47 UTC

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