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 14:29:32 +0100
To: Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com>
Cc: Chris Houston <thecjhouston@gmail.com>, "Tyszko, Jason" <jtyszko@uschamber.com>, Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>, "public-talent-signal@w3.org" <public-talent-signal@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f34c3b77-6be2-c371-b057-525b6b3c7796@pjjk.co.uk>

On 22/08/2019 14:11, Alex Jackl wrote:
>
> Phil,
> If you will bear with me for a moment because I think we are on the 
> verge of an outbreak of agreement.

Yes, I think we might be.

Some word-smithing might be necessary (what you see as 'the thing 
itself' probably depends on your context / view of Platonic philosophy).

And I think we might need some way of dealing with those assertions of 
competence that satisfies people who don't want to go as far as talking 
about credentials. I have ideas ... but I want to understand more what 
the underlying issue is there.

Looking forward to hearing what the other Talent Signalers say.

Phil


> I am going to start philosophically and then dive to specifics.  I 
> will also try TO KEEP IT SHORT.   I am also going to not address 
> evidence  or assessments right here though it comes into play for 
> obvious reasons.
>
> Based on all the conversations so far:
>
> There are  three modes of talking about "things":
>
>   * the things themselves as an attribute or state of a person or
>     entity;   (the food or location)
>   * descriptions of things - using language to describe these things
>     in a way manageable by systems and people; and,  (the menu or the
>     map)
>   * instances of the thing: associating said things with people via an
>     assertion by a person or organization (the Yelp review or the
>     Passport stamp)
>
> What has made this conversation confusing is we are also discussing a 
> distinction between two things: what are commonly called competencies 
> and credentials.
> What is confusing this conversation even more is that the CLR teams 
> and many of us working around that have created a language to try and 
> disambiguate the semantic confusion around "competencies" and 
> "credentials" by creating new terms - "achievement description" and 
> "achievement assertion".  I think this was smart but now we have four 
> terms in play all dancing around the same topic/kind of thing.
>
> [takes in breath]
>
> So I am proposing this:
> We  have two KINDS of things:
>
>   * Competencies; and,
>   * Credentials
>
> I think the work CLR is doing is almost entirely in the world of 
> Credentials.   So here are six definitions I hope resonate with people 
> and allow us to continue to model.  The exact wording of the 
> definitions are  probably very word smithable because I am typing 
> furiously before my daughter's move into college while this 
> inspiration is still alive for me :-)
>
> Competency:
>
>   * *Competency*: The thing itself:  An attribute or state a person
>     (or I suppose an organization) has.
>   * *Competency Description*: Language and title describing the
>     thing.  Usually described  as Knowledge, Skills, Attribute or
>     Experience.   Also may contain information on where it sits in a
>     taxonomy of such things
>   * *Competency Instance*: this is where the whole confusing area
>     lives- I am asserting that the moment you assert a competency it
>     becomes a CREDENTIAL, even if it is a weak one.  I think we really
>     only deal directly with Competency Descriptions
>
> Credential/Achievement
>
>   * *Credential: *The thing itself.  The existence of an assertion of
>     competencies.  See competency assertion above..  (I understand you
>     can have credentials for experiences - attended seminar, seat time
>     in a lecture, survived combat, etc.  but let's lump that into
>     competency for now as I believe that EXPERIENCE can be brought in
>     without hurting the model and deal only with "COMPETENCY based
>     credentials)
>   * *Credential Description/Achievement Description: *Describes a
>     credential/achievement and some metadata about the
>     credential/achievement.   Could include, if relevant,  who is
>     "offering" the credential, where it sits in a taxonomy of
>     credentials, and  possibly what competencies it represents.   It
>     may contain some constraints like what evidence/assessment is
>     needed to "get" the credential
>   * *Credential Instance/Achievement Assertion:* This is a credential
>     linked to a person by an organization or a person (could be the
>     data subject themselves).  might be formal ("PhD from MIT in
>     Physics") or much more informal ("I attended /Alex Jackl's
>     Emporium of Amazing Education Data/").  It may also contain the
>     evidence/assessments completed.
>
>
> I know these may not be perfect, and it may be a little different than 
> the exact language any one of our groups or philosophies uses but I 
> think we could use these six "definitions" to cover all the use cases 
> we  have been talking about.   I am proposing this as a language we 
> can all propagate out to our various groups as well.
>
> What say you fellow talent signallers?
>
> PHEW.  Okay.  Off to put my daughter into her college dorm for 
> freshman year!
>
> ***
> 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 <http://bardicsystems.com/>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:10 AM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk 
> <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     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 <http://schema.org> as Course
>     <https://schema.org/Course> and CourseInstance
>     <https://schema.org/CourseInstance> in schema.org
>     <http://schema.org>, and there is a similar distinction going on
>     with schema.org <http://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.
>
-- 

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 13:30:02 UTC

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