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

Re: Domain sketch

From: Alex Jackl <alex@bardicsystems.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2019 13:16:22 -0400
Message-ID: <CAGHXJiiJ+oyumtKN5_RO5RnKvyS3=ARbius-kPm6ty3oD=dwew@mail.gmail.com>
To: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Cc: public-talent-signal@w3.org
That is super interesting.  I am not familiar with how "AchieveAction" is
used - can you give us a few examples?

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


On Tue, Aug 27, 2019 at 12:20 PM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:

> 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
> 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>
>>
>> --
>
> 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 17:17:03 UTC

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