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

Re: Domain sketch

From: Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 21:18:13 +0000 (UTC)
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Message-ID: <945107045.683053.1566508693156@mail.yahoo.com>
 One thing I'm not sure about:
If we say   "@type": "http://schema.org/EducationalOccupationalCredential",   // the thing is a credential
That thing is defined in Schema as: "An educational or occupational credential. A diploma, academic degree, certification, qualification, badge, etc., that may be awarded to a person or other entity that meets the requirements defined by the credentialer."

So it is not the assertion, and not a tangible thing in the world like the paper diploma. It is information about something that may be awarded. It is metadata defining a class of thing not an instance of a thing.
So shouldn't the comment be corrected?...  "@type": "http://schema.org/EducationalOccupationalCredential",   // the thing is a credential definition



    On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 02:02:09 PM EDT, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:  
 
   

 
 On 22/08/2019 17:46, Jim Goodell wrote:
  
SO, I'm going to suggest we all do something very difficult, i.e. we change our own behavior. We need to change the words we use when we talk to each other to establish a new lexicon that will work across silos. It has to start with us. We should always say either "Credential Definition" or "Credential Assertion" never "Credential". We should always say either "Competency Definition" or "Competency Assertion", never "Competency". And we should hold each other accountable. 
 
 
Ooh, I'm not sure about that. How do you say what it is that a Competency Definition is defining? Do I have to say that I am learning a Competency Definition--because that seems quite different from learning a competency. 
 
 
In the systems we create we will only have C___ Definitions and C___ Assertions, so when we are talking about what we have in those systems that's what we should talk about. But if those are in RDF then we are in a world where we "represent information about things that can be identified on the Web, even when they cannot be directly retrieved on the Web" [1, emphasis in the original], so what we identify is the thing itself.
 
FWIW I think a Credential Definition looks like this in JSON-LD:
 {
   "@id": "http://example.org/credential/123",           // a web identifier for the thing itself
   "@type": "http://schema.org/EducationalOccupationalCredential",   // the thing is a credential
   "http://schema.org/credentialCategory": "BSc",        // various statements defining the credential
   "http://schema.org/provider": {...}
   ...
} 
 
(You can call that a graph and give it a name if you want, or put it on a web page and point that with the url property)
 
I hope that is compatible with what you were meaning: when we talk about what we have in our systems talk about C___ Definition & C___ Assertion; talk about Credentials and Competencies only when we are talking about what is in the outside world.
 
 Phil
 

 
 
1. W3C RDF Primer, section 1 https://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#intro
 
 
 -- 
 
Phil Barker. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
 CETIS LLP: a cooperative consultancy for innovation in education technology.
 PJJK Limited: technology to enhance learning; information systems for education.
 
CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in England number OC399090
 PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, number SC569282.
    
Received on Thursday, 22 August 2019 21:18:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:33:37 UTC