Re: Domain sketch

I haven't seen much more discussion on this.   I agree with Stuart that
this is much broader than just this group but I want to start promoting
these definitions as a way to coordinate.   Are there any objections to
that?

I know Greg has his four-square representation that I think is also good
and I think can utilize these definitions.

No words are going to be perfect or ring true to everyone.  But if we can
consolidate on these definitions and the relationships  between them that
we  have been framing and get  more people to talk the same way we will at
least make all these conversations easier as we dig deeper into the
real-world use cases.

Thoughts?


***
Alexander Jackl
CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc.
alex@bardicsystems.com
M: 508.395.2836
F: 617.812.6020
http://bardicsystems.com


On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:59 PM Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com> wrote:

> Love this idea Jim!  I agree to do that with one exception:
>
> Can we use “Achievement” as a synonym for “Credential” to be
> understandable in the CLR domain of conversations?  Just a question?  So we
> can talk about “Achievement Assertions” and “Achievement Descriptions” as
> synonyms for “Credential Assertions” and “Credential Descriptions”.  So we
> can all be more likely talking about the same thing...
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Aug 22, 2019, at 12:46 PM, Jim Goodell <jgoodell2@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> +1 for Alex's remarks !
>
> ...With one important addition.
>
> We have become comfortable with referring to "Competency" and "Credential"
> from one perspective or another. In the Credential Engine context we assume
> by default the work "Credential" means a competency description and when
> sitting in a W3C Verifiable Credentials group or Open  Badges workgroup we
> might assume it to mean an assertion. When we get in cross functional
> groups there will always be confusion. We should always add "Definition" or
> "Assertion" unless talking about the domain rather than the details of the
> data (and we rarely do that in this kind of group.)
>
> 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.
>
> If I say "Competency" or "Credential" without a qualifier please call me
> out and ask which one I mean.
>
>
>
> Phil's sketch updated with this in mind...
>
> <1566492106826blob.jpg>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thursday, August 22, 2019, 09:12:18 AM EDT, Alex Jackl <
> alex@bardicsystems.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Phil,
> If you will bear with me for a moment because I think we are on the verge
> of an outbreak of agreement.   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
> M: 508.395.2836
> F: 617.812.6020
> http://bardicsystems.com
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 6:10 AM Phil Barker <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 as Course <https://schema.org/Course>
> and CourseInstance <https://schema.org/CourseInstance> in schema.org, and
> there is a similar distinction going on with schema.org exampleOfWork
> <https://schema.org/exampleOfWork> used to map from a story as a
> CreativeWork (the platonic ideal) to an edition (or copy) of a Book (a
> physical instantiation of it).
>
> achievementDescription = Platonic Form
> assertion = instance of the form
>
> The *achievementDescription* is something that can be achieved, learned,
> demonstrated, gained, etc.  It is the independent form.  It's a generic
> term and can represent a Degree (Credential), a Course, a Certificate,
> Competency, Assessment, etc.  The achievementDescription should stand alone
> and not be required to be tied to a student.  This would be like the
> Catalog of courses/degrees published for the Academic Year.  It lives on
> its own regardless of if a student actually takes a course or not.
>
> I think the core of our difference is whether an achievementDescription
> "is something that can be achieved..." or "the *description* of something
> that can be achieved...". From the education end of talent signaling,
> learning a skill is different from learning the description of a skill
> (learners do one, educators do the other), so it pays to distinguish them.
> We often elide the two because, as with many things, when you resolve an
> identifier for an achievement you would expect to receive the description
> of the thing, not the thing itself.
>
> The *Assertion* is the instantiation of the achievementDescription.  This
> is where the Student comes in to the picture and is a record of the student
> learning or 'achieving knowledge' at a certain time/place in the real
> world. It can include a score or performance level and other meta data
> about the instance of the achievement.
>
> I think there is another difference in thinking here, between an entity,
> or a term referring to an entity and statements that can be made using such
> terms. So I would say that an assertion is a statement along the lines of
> "X says Y has skill Z" (where X may equal Y for self-made assertions) I
> could also say "here is a description of Z"
>
> I think we are probably talking about the same things in two different
> ways.
>
> Does this work?
>
> Achievement Description: a set of statements about the nature of something
> that can be achieved
>
> Achievement Assertion: a set of statements about what someone(or
> something) has achieved
>
> Phil
>
>
> On 21/08/2019 23:45, Chris Houston wrote:
>
> A few points to add to the discussion.
>
> Self-issued or self-asserted credentials and achievements is already a
> thing today and there is still a place/need for this, probably using the
> same data structures.
>
> Without getting too deep into the 'is a competency a credential'
> discussion, I would at the very least say a competency can be awarded
> (recorded) to a student by a school in the same way a course can be
> completed and appears on a transcript provided to the student by the
> institution.
>
> *I have a nickel instead of a full dollar.  When I get enough nickels,
> I'll have a dollar.   *
> Another way of saying this is when I earn (or have demonstrated) enough
> competencies I could be awarded a credential.  Today, in higher ed, you
> take courses in a program and earn credits. Eventually you earn enough
> credits to graduate the program and earn a degree.  Historically speaking,
> the credential is the degree in this overly simplified view.   Credits =
> Nickels and Credential = Dollar
>
> The main point Greg was trying to make is a "platonic forms
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_forms>" one.  You have the
> 'ideal form of a thing', and then you have the instantiation of the 'thing'
> in the real world.
>
> achievementDescription = Platonic Form
> assertion = instance of the form
>
> The *achievementDescription* is something that can be achieved, learned,
> demonstrated, gained, etc.  It is the independent form.  It's a generic
> term and can represent a Degree (Credential), a Course, a Certificate,
> Competency, Assessment, etc.  The achievementDescription should stand alone
> and not be required to be tied to a student.  This would be like the
> Catalog of courses/degrees published for the Academic Year.  It lives on
> its own regardless of if a student actually takes a course or not.
>
> The *Assertion* is the instantiation of the achievementDescription.  This
> is where the Student comes in to the picture and is a record of the student
> learning or 'achieving knowledge' at a certain time/place in the real
> world. It can include a score or performance level and other meta data
> about the instance of the achievement.
>
>
> [note: this is not a perfect analogy, but close.]
>
> If you have 360 students, you don't teach 360 individualized courses for
> the same subject/topic.  You teach the 1 course to the 360 students.
> [personalized learning aside].   The course is the form.  There could be
> 360 assertions with a letter grade on each representing the completion (and
> passing of) the course.  Each record should contain the same
> achievementDescription (in this case, the course).   However, each record
> would have different students and results.
>
> Any student record can be an *achievementDescription* *asserted *by the
> institution to the student.  These achievementDescriptions can roll
> up....to other achievementDescriptions, just like how a set of courses can
> roll up to a program, or a set of competencies can roll up to a course.  If
> you achieve enough learning, under specific circumstances, you can earn a
> Credential.  But the Credential can be described, data-wise, in the same
> structure as an assessment  or competency.  And the record of proof that an
> individual has earned the credential can be the same as well.
>
> Essentially, the *nickel* and the *dollar* are both forms of US currency,
> so we are talking the same language.  In my opinion, we need a common
> currency when building an ecosystem of learning for the 21st century.
>
> achievementDescription - anything that can be learned or achieved.
> assertion - proof, or a record of an individual earning/demonstrating the
> achievementDescription
> credential - an achievementDescription of an elevated status based on the
> issuing party, and in general based on accreditation or similar quality
> approving bodies.
>
> - Chris Houston, eLumen
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 20, 2019 at 11:20 AM Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com>
> 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> 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>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 10:52 AM
> *To:* Tyszko, Jason <jtyszko@USChamber.com>
> *Cc:* Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>; 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>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 20, 2019 6:10 AM
> *To:* 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
> <jtyszko@USChamber.com>]
> *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 2:02 PM
> *To:* 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>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 1:44 PM
> *To:* 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 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> <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
> *Sent:* Monday, August 19, 2019 12:59 PM
> *To:* 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 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.
>
> 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 classes can be used as part of an
> assertion. I don't think anyone is doing this in 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 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
>
> 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>
> 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
>
> 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>
> *Sent:* Thursday, August 15, 2019 6:03 AM
> *To:* 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
> 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.
>
> <1566492106826blob.jpg>
>
>