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

Re: Domain sketch

From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 17:19:34 +0100
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Message-ID: <112465ea-ff57-cb38-9879-ccbe3d10c9d8@pjjk.co.uk>
Alex, do you think that achievement thus used would work well alongside 
schema.org/AchieveAction <https://schema.org/AchieveAction#> ? So the 
bare bones of an assertion might look like:

     @type: AchieveAction
     agent: Phil Barker
     object: JSON punctuation Skills
     actionStatus: FailedActionStatus

I will let others comment on “Achievement” as a synonym for 
“Credential”, my only thought is that I wonder if such language would 
help the people here who have wanted ways of recognizing competences 
without institutions awarding Credentials (in which case Achievement 
might be broader than their usage of Credential).

Phil

On 27/08/2019 16:49, Alex Jackl wrote:
> 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 <mailto:alex@bardicsystems.com>
> M: 508.395.2836
> F: 617.812.6020
> http://bardicsystems.com <http://bardicsystems.com/>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 1:59 PM Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com 
> <mailto: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
>     <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <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
>>>>                     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>
>
-- 

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 Tuesday, 27 August 2019 16:20:03 UTC

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