- 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