- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 15:04:53 +0100
- To: "Nadeau, Gregory" <gnadeau@pcgus.com>, 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: <7715146a-854b-fe90-5c88-5de5ee7119cf@pjjk.co.uk>
On 22/08/2019 14:36, Nadeau, Gregory wrote:
>
> Phil,
>
> Thank you. I think what you have written is very well stated. I would
> like to use it in CEDS, IEEE, and IMS.
>
I'm very happy with that so long as it doesn't impede our ability to use
it in other work (consider it CC:BY rather than an exclusive license).
> I believe we can find strong alignment and generate deeper
> harmonization with T3/CTDL and W3C with regards to Verifiable Credentials.
>
That would be excellent.
>
> With that as a foundation, I would like to correct some things I said
> over the last few days. After some discussions with Jim Goodell and
> then with Alex Jackl, I see better the true distinction between a
> competency and a credential. Both are issued in a “platonic” form as a
> linked data description, with no PII, evidence, verification, or
> endorsement or other instance data; that comes from the assertion
> instance. However, the more meaningful distinction, I think, is that
> credentials can describe requirements that include, but go beyond
> competencies, such as seat time, prerequisite, payment, etc.
>
>
>
> Generalized, Linked Data Description
>
>
>
> Specific Instance with PII
>
> Statements of Measurable Performance
>
>
>
> Competency Description
>
> and Crosswalks
>
> (CASE)
>
>
>
> Achievement Assertion
>
> (CLR)
>
> Statements of Measurable Performance and
>
> Additional Requirements
>
>
>
> Credential Descriptions
>
> and Pathways
>
> (CTDL)
>
>
>
> Achievement Assertion
>
> (CLR)
>
Thank you, that's useful. And thanks to Jim and Alex, and everyone else
for taking the time to help us work this through.
For my part, I don't think the domain sketch is ready for widespread
dissemination as it is evidently open to many different interpretations,
but perhaps over time we can come up with something that is less
ambiguous. If that something is shared between this group, CEDS, IEEE
and IMS then I think we are doing very useful work here.
Phil
> g.
>
> *From:*Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 22, 2019 6:10 AM
> *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
> *Subject:* Re: Domain sketch
>
> 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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTheory_of_forms&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=%2BuCPW3ZauBZlFv3BUxyjjQkKfxR6mXs6CC7Saj%2FOqDI%3D&reserved=0>"
> 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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2FCourse&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=ZxgXNidUZw6AR1p5I8prsSNglTYJ5Qt6pBwwpidvHVQ%3D&reserved=0>
> and CourseInstance
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2FCourseInstance&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=iAtQiLcbT5Eg9pFH1NDBtSeLvuKEyntqvKMudBJqrGs%3D&reserved=0>
> in schema.org, and there is a similar distinction going on with
> schema.org exampleOfWork
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2FexampleOfWork&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=5L%2Fhl6b2ourp64JpLQs46teJhv%2FrKXgnjSZE9iBXnE4%3D&reserved=0>
> 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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTheory_of_forms&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=%2BuCPW3ZauBZlFv3BUxyjjQkKfxR6mXs6CC7Saj%2FOqDI%3D&reserved=0>"
> 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://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2FhasCredential&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=d3X1rCNHW8KXEeTpdBMgpIvvXv1ZZCYpkhV0XSFy6Uk%3D&reserved=0>
> as a property of Person in schema.org
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=mQGCpqeq58Fl6yVZ8UrhjS1UPkQRK%2BwWzOsiX3V3%2BHE%3D&reserved=0>
> 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
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=mQGCpqeq58Fl6yVZ8UrhjS1UPkQRK%2BwWzOsiX3V3%2BHE%3D&reserved=0>
> 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
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=mQGCpqeq58Fl6yVZ8UrhjS1UPkQRK%2BwWzOsiX3V3%2BHE%3D&reserved=0>.
>
> 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
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=mQGCpqeq58Fl6yVZ8UrhjS1UPkQRK%2BwWzOsiX3V3%2BHE%3D&reserved=0>
> classes can be used as part of an assertion. I
> don't think anyone is doing this in schema.org
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=mQGCpqeq58Fl6yVZ8UrhjS1UPkQRK%2BwWzOsiX3V3%2BHE%3D&reserved=0>,
> 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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=HdxTdH0TizH8UbJtf9qbCsIGaioFf9rN8JSMHlQILw0%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=VA8elw3%2Ff5Y%2BL1aUXlZYbmt3hXx9oIgavqulDn7525M%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
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=mQGCpqeq58Fl6yVZ8UrhjS1UPkQRK%2BwWzOsiX3V3%2BHE%3D&reserved=0>
> 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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=z3zqoCu5BiMJiKFO2PturCAVEoA9D2DW9kMi8s1JduY%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=43pQwc63y8JhULK5bVPcjuQ6LLR96HgYreilsWA6Qcg%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=Iqkk5%2FVILtg102cjT9bI4SZ5U4lZltIlvjH6miEXvng%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=mQGCpqeq58Fl6yVZ8UrhjS1UPkQRK%2BwWzOsiX3V3%2BHE%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=vXY%2FkH9wb6fJBRW91NQex%2FYn5Ke8SlVCRIF80bQFIwA%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=MIzCqOnxq%2B4UeK%2FvkH9QNfTP8Fn8oEV%2FKFu3JOdASso%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=MIzCqOnxq%2B4UeK%2FvkH9QNfTP8Fn8oEV%2FKFu3JOdASso%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=zC9vJHFBOeyGH4gPrX%2FZuqmbj2SZmmgq2%2FWpjEjCPkU%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=BMQrrNi4H1jwLmjXuqQw1Fn%2BiNcFqVPwdBPBZdTAPRI%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=MIzCqOnxq%2B4UeK%2FvkH9QNfTP8Fn8oEV%2FKFu3JOdASso%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=MIzCqOnxq%2B4UeK%2FvkH9QNfTP8Fn8oEV%2FKFu3JOdASso%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=zC9vJHFBOeyGH4gPrX%2FZuqmbj2SZmmgq2%2FWpjEjCPkU%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=BMQrrNi4H1jwLmjXuqQw1Fn%2BiNcFqVPwdBPBZdTAPRI%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=MIzCqOnxq%2B4UeK%2FvkH9QNfTP8Fn8oEV%2FKFu3JOdASso%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=MIzCqOnxq%2B4UeK%2FvkH9QNfTP8Fn8oEV%2FKFu3JOdASso%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=zC9vJHFBOeyGH4gPrX%2FZuqmbj2SZmmgq2%2FWpjEjCPkU%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=BMQrrNi4H1jwLmjXuqQw1Fn%2BiNcFqVPwdBPBZdTAPRI%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=MIzCqOnxq%2B4UeK%2FvkH9QNfTP8Fn8oEV%2FKFu3JOdASso%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=MIzCqOnxq%2B4UeK%2FvkH9QNfTP8Fn8oEV%2FKFu3JOdASso%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=zC9vJHFBOeyGH4gPrX%2FZuqmbj2SZmmgq2%2FWpjEjCPkU%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=BMQrrNi4H1jwLmjXuqQw1Fn%2BiNcFqVPwdBPBZdTAPRI%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=MIzCqOnxq%2B4UeK%2FvkH9QNfTP8Fn8oEV%2FKFu3JOdASso%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=MIzCqOnxq%2B4UeK%2FvkH9QNfTP8Fn8oEV%2FKFu3JOdASso%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=zC9vJHFBOeyGH4gPrX%2FZuqmbj2SZmmgq2%2FWpjEjCPkU%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%7Cd46e54f736fd4f9fad2a08d726e90482%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=BMQrrNi4H1jwLmjXuqQw1Fn%2BiNcFqVPwdBPBZdTAPRI%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
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 14:05:23 UTC