- From: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 31 Jul 2019 14:47:46 -0400
- To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
- Message-ID: <45e44a67-9602-925e-2e43-d46582f4ca6c@gmail.com>
Ah, yes, I was in fact behind the times. The DefinedTermSet discussion
came out while I was gone, and I hadn't caught it (or scrolled down far
enough). So, that gets us 75% of the way there, I think, and anything
beyond that is a future sufficiently far off it's probably not worth
spending time to work on it yet. I knew I'd end up apologizing one way
or another for my lapse, but at least now I'm caught up.
Thanks for your infinite patience, Phil.
Merrilea
On 7/31/2019 1:15 PM, Phil Barker wrote:
>
> Merrilea, so sorry to hear about your mother.
>
> Yes, currently skills in schema.org are just text values. The example
> hidden down the bottom of this page shows a suggested refinement of
> that to controlled values drawn from a "DefinedTermSet" That defined
> term set would be a competency framework. So:
>
> "skills": {
> "@type": "Definedterm",
> "termCode": "K0016",
> "description": "Knowledge of computer programming principles",
> "inDefinedTermSet": {
> "@type": "DefinedTermSet",
> "name": "National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education (NICE)
> Cybersecurity Workforce Framework",
> "url": "https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-181"
> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.6028%2FNIST.SP.800-181&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=GSojtCwQ%2BoMlLRqzT0IGnlvfPadELhDBUu%2BVBPjH6oM%3D&reserved=0>,
> "publisher": {
> "@type": "Organization",
> "name": "National Institute of Standards and Technology"
> },
> "datePublished": "2017-08"
> }
> }
>
> This mirrors the approach the Educational Occupational Credentials
> community took when wanting to specify what a Credential certified,
> this is from the example at the end of the page for
> schema:EducationalOccupationalCredential
> <https://schema.org/EducationalOccupationalCredential>
>
> "competencyRequired" : {
> "@type": "DefinedTerm",
> "termCode": "ASTFM401",
> "name": "Understand facilities management and its place in the organisation",
> "url":"https://www.ukstandards.org.uk/PublishedNos/ASTFM401.pdf",
> "inDefinedTermSet":"https://www.ukstandards.org.uk/"
> }
>
> There isn't currently anything in schema.org for Assessments, and we
> don't have a means of declaring a defined term as being a Competency
> statement, but if we can agree that the existing skills property
> should point to definitions of competencies, then we will be one more
> step towards having competencies surrounded.
>
> I'm not so comfortable about using the skills property to point to
> directly to an EducationalOccupationalCredential. The existing
> qualification and educationalExperience properties seem a better match
> for that (I use qualification in the sense of the definitions gathered
> by UNESCO
> <https://unevoc.unesco.org/go.php?q=TVETipedia+Glossary+A-Z&filt=all&id=367>)
>
>
> In writing this I remember a sketch of the Talent Signalling domain
> that I used in the kick-off webinar
>
> **
>
> I still think this works. I'm not sure how big a bite to take at it, I
> certainly don't want to suggest everything in it to schema.org in one
> go, but I'm now thinking that we might usefully think about whether it
> is a reasonable framework around which to have our discussions?
>
> Phil
>
> On 31/07/2019 17:41, Merrilea Mayo wrote:
>>
>> So.. let me preface my undoubtedly ignorant and way-behind-the times
>> comment with the disclaimer that I, too, have been away from work.
>> I'm just now back from the three week "farewell" cruise with my
>> mother (she was diagnosed with terminal cancer on Memorial Day). I
>> more or less dropped everything during those 3 weeks, including this
>> group. Add to that, the cruise spent about half its time north of
>> the Arctic circle, and so modern communication, even by satellite,
>> was extremely spotty. So, be aware I'm not all here.
>>
>> Here's the probably-late-to-the-party comment: I see that our
>> current schema for "skills" assumes that a loose English language
>> description is sufficient. This may be true for now. However, we
>> can see organizations starting to develop skills frameworks, skills
>> definitions, and skills assessments to back up very specific
>> definitions. At that point, there will be "critical thinking" as
>> defined/certified by organization ABC and "creativity" as
>> defined/certified by organization XYZ. Once skills be come
>> "certifiable" (I mean that in the "testable/documented" sense, not
>> in the "crazy-lady" sense), you will need some properties that are
>> currently associated with more formal concepts, like
>> EducationalOccupationalCredential. Certified skills in essence
>> become mini-credentials. I am not sure what is supposed to happen at
>> that point. Do people just migrate to using
>> EducationalOccupationalCredential instead of Skill for the same concept?
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>> Merrilea
>>
>> On 7/31/2019 7:33 AM, Phil Barker wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello all,
>>>
>>> I would like to prod this discussion for further input, just because
>>> I know that several people (including me) on this list have been
>>> away from work since I first raised it.
>>>
>>> So far the message that I'm seeing is that the simple approach I
>>> showed in the email (below) and on the wiki
>>> <https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Example_of_how_to_refer_skills_requirements_to_competency_definitions>
>>> [1] is adequate, and that while there are complexities that may be
>>> represented elsewhere, the existing schema.org property skills
>>> <https://schema.org/skills> is adequate for relating any type of
>>> required competence to a job posting.
>>>
>>> I'm interested in hearing more opinions regarding this, whether
>>> agreeing or not with that approach.
>>>
>>> Regards, Phil
>>>
>>> 1.
>>> https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Example_of_how_to_refer_skills_requirements_to_competency_definitions
>>> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fcommunity%2Ftalent-signal%2Fwiki%2FExample_of_how_to_refer_skills_requirements_to_competency_definitions&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=fJJKvoSDgelDu0%2FGO%2BIjPAbZEHbLF1yQetBdldSs6MQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>>
>>> 2. https://schema.org/skills
>>>
>>> On 04/07/2019 17:50, Nadeau, Gregory wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello All –
>>>>
>>>> From my perspective, delineating distinctions between knowledge,
>>>> skills, abilities is mostly an exercise in semantics and is not
>>>> necessary for information modelling. The more critical functional
>>>> distinction is between:
>>>>
>>>> * An *achievement* – something that more than one person could
>>>> demonstrate (examples include: SKA, competency, credential, etc)
>>>> * An *assertion* – a specific instance by an issuer about a
>>>> recipient (learner/worker) regarding the achievement
>>>>
>>>> Other terms could be used. This distinction aligns with the IMS
>>>> Global Open Badge and new draft candidate Comprehensive Learner
>>>> Record specification.
>>>>
>>>> g.
>>>>
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *Greg Nadeau
>>>> *Manager
>>>>
>>>> 781-370-1017
>>>>
>>>> gnadeau@pcgus.com <mailto:gnadeau@pcgus.com>
>>>>
>>>> publicconsultinggroup.com
>>>>
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>> 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:* Fritz Ray <fritley@gmail.com>
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, July 3, 2019 9:37 PM
>>>> *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org
>>>> *Subject:* Re: [Talent-Signal] relating competencies to job postings
>>>>
>>>> I have decided to re-open the can of worms, because it is a holiday
>>>> weekend, and discussion is what the holidays are about.
>>>>
>>>> There are a constellation of objects and relationships that, I
>>>> believe, represent some clarity when it comes to relating a number
>>>> of these things. Let me know if I am making some fundamental error
>>>> here.
>>>>
>>>> Definitions: First, there is task itself. This represents a
>>>> repeatable thing that can be done by an individual. A
>>>> competence/competency represents the capability of an individual to
>>>> perform a task. Demonstrating a task implies competence and the
>>>> ability to employ KSAs.
>>>>
>>>> KSAs are not directly demonstrable, because skills, knowledge, and
>>>> abilities -- in their latent form -- are not expressible. They can
>>>> only be demonstrated when performing a model task or representative
>>>> task -- then ipso facto one is demonstrating competence or a
>>>> competency, because one is employing a combination of KSAs to
>>>> perform a task.
>>>>
>>>> ----- Examples -----
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So, to call something a skill or knowledge or ability is to speak
>>>> about latent notions -- The knowledge of Pi to 25 places is latent.
>>>> Reciting Pi to 25 places is a task. A person's capability to recite
>>>> Pi to 25 places is a competency, because it necessarily employs a
>>>> combination of KSAs -- breathing, memory, sequencing, the numbers,
>>>> the number system, speech, etc to perform a task, reciting Pi to 25
>>>> places, in a context that requires those KSAs -- A classroom, a
>>>> bus, a job interview.
>>>>
>>>> The skill of sharpening a pencil is latent, bottled up in the human
>>>> (or machine, but never mind that) brain and spine and whatever
>>>> other parts. Sharpening a pencil is a task. The competence to
>>>> sharpen a pencil employs all manner of other KSAs that perform the
>>>> task and create an outcome.
>>>>
>>>> The ability to stand is only provable through the act or task of
>>>> standing.... Repeat explanation...
>>>>
>>>> Therefore, *I think the labels skills is fine*. I believe skills
>>>> are separate from knowledge or natural abilities or acquired
>>>> abilities, so there may be something there -- but putting a
>>>> competency in the place of a skill is not wrong per se. One (a
>>>> skill) identifies a context free and task free latent capability
>>>> that may or may not be deployable in other contexts, the other (a
>>>> competency) is more explicit and grounded in task and context.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ---- Continued nannerings -----
>>>>
>>>> Likewise, a Learning Objective is only expressible through a
>>>> competency because an individual's having learned all they can
>>>> learn (whether that involves performing the objective task or not)
>>>> has a competence gap between what they learned or did in the
>>>> learning environment and what they will do in the target
>>>> environment. The KSAs employed demonstrating that competency in the
>>>> "field" as it were are probably different from the classroom and
>>>> lab environments. These contextual gaps don't exist when we talk
>>>> about the knowledge it takes to remember how to spell quixotic, but
>>>> the context matters suddenly when done on a stage with a bright
>>>> light at a spelling bee.
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 3, 2019 at 4:24 AM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk
>>>> <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hello all,
>>>>
>>>> I know that many of you are about start a holiday; and after
>>>> that I will be on vacation. So this may not be the best time to
>>>> start a conversation, but I want to post this now to see what I
>>>> come back to...
>>>>
>>>> One of the issues we have listed is how to refer skills
>>>> requirements to competency definitions in a standard framework.
>>>>
>>>> I have drafted on the wiki a straw man for a simple way of
>>>> doing this
>>>> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fcommunity%2Ftalent-signal%2Fwiki%2FExample_of_how_to_refer_skills_requirements_to_competency_definitions&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=fJJKvoSDgelDu0%2FGO%2BIjPAbZEHbLF1yQetBdldSs6MQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> [1] with minimal change to what currently exists in schema.org
>>>> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=19XCZTOxfCuDvTAXObHqsszSBTy54XRKOkHoDvRVs9o%3D&reserved=0>.
>>>> It requires only that the expected type for one property be
>>>> changed.
>>>>
>>>> {
>>>>
>>>> "@context": "http://schema.org/"
>>>> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org%2F&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=hGZM%2B3yAKn4GivtFaXhiG9nZ5Wdz%2Fb%2BNqVvbTC%2FTWYs%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>>
>>>> "@type": "JobPosting",
>>>>
>>>> "title": "Junior software developer",
>>>>
>>>> "skills": {
>>>>
>>>> "@type": "Definedterm",
>>>>
>>>> "termCode": "K0016",
>>>>
>>>> "description": "Knowledge of computer programming principles",
>>>>
>>>> "inDefinedTermSet": {
>>>>
>>>> "@type": "DefinedTermSet",
>>>>
>>>> "name": "National Initiative for Cybersecurity Education
>>>> (NICE) Cybersecurity Workforce Framework",
>>>>
>>>> "url": "https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.SP.800-181"
>>>> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fdoi.org%2F10.6028%2FNIST.SP.800-181&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=GSojtCwQ%2BoMlLRqzT0IGnlvfPadELhDBUu%2BVBPjH6oM%3D&reserved=0>,
>>>>
>>>> "publisher": {
>>>>
>>>> "@type": "Organization",
>>>>
>>>> "name": "National Institute of Standards and Technology"
>>>>
>>>> },
>>>>
>>>> "datePublished": "2017-08"
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>> Points to note / consider
>>>>
>>>> * this doesn't attempt to fully describe the competency, that's
>>>> the job of the framework. Furthermore this approach is pretty
>>>> much agnostic to the format used to represent the framework--I
>>>> mean, it would be nice if a linked-data friendly format were
>>>> used and we can then link properly to its @id but this example
>>>> is a pdf.
>>>>
>>>> * is there any other key information that is required to
>>>> identify the competence being referred to?
>>>>
>>>> * I've used the existing schema.org
>>>> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=19XCZTOxfCuDvTAXObHqsszSBTy54XRKOkHoDvRVs9o%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> property skills to cover a competency that is defined as
>>>> 'knowledge'. I know the KSA approach to competencies, but also
>>>> that other aspects can be added (tools/technologies, attitudes)
>>>> an other approaches taken. Can we live with lumping these
>>>> together under the label skills, or do we have to look into
>>>> creating a property with a different name? We will be somewhat
>>>> constrained by existing schema.org
>>>> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=19XCZTOxfCuDvTAXObHqsszSBTy54XRKOkHoDvRVs9o%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> usage. Also I think that trying to separate out the different
>>>> aspects of competence would cause difficulties when implemented
>>>> in the non-specialist schema.org
>>>> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fschema.org&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=19XCZTOxfCuDvTAXObHqsszSBTy54XRKOkHoDvRVs9o%3D&reserved=0>
>>>> context. Remember, the competence framework is where the
>>>> information should be provided about what aspect of competence
>>>> (knowledge, skill or ability) is being referred to.
>>>>
>>>> Best wishes to all celebrating the 4 July.
>>>>
>>>> Phil
>>>>
>>>> 1.
>>>> https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Example_of_how_to_refer_skills_requirements_to_competency_definitions
>>>> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.w3.org%2Fcommunity%2Ftalent-signal%2Fwiki%2FExample_of_how_to_refer_skills_requirements_to_competency_definitions&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=fJJKvoSDgelDu0%2FGO%2BIjPAbZEHbLF1yQetBdldSs6MQ%3D&reserved=0>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Phil Barker
>>>> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.pjjk.net%2Fphil&data=01%7C01%7CGNADEAU%40PCGUS.COM%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=%2FBipLxOJWK8aRBqXTZb21wPlDtx8XyVgRhw39R9dfeE%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%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=%2FBipLxOJWK8aRBqXTZb21wPlDtx8XyVgRhw39R9dfeE%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%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=ahdrbEr0rJZ2MdOMWeoQjg46sDQte0oFzIrDlAZjwFE%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%7C4cc0f23be87c4eb1088008d700202f49%7Cd9b110c34c254379b97ae248938cc17b%7C0&sdata=PUQvqaf1mjf0vPsHtCh3lLhjIwyt1mxXBEa9%2FesK0gQ%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.
>>>
>> --
>>
>> Merrilea J. Mayo, Ph.D.
>> Mayo Enterprises, LLC
>> 12101 Sheets Farm Rd.
>> North Potomac, MD 20878
>>
>> merrileamayo@gmail.com
>> https://merrileamayo.com/ < >
>> 240-304-0439 (cell)
>> 301-977-2599 (landline)
>>
> --
>
> 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.
>
--
Merrilea J. Mayo, Ph.D.
Mayo Enterprises, LLC
12101 Sheets Farm Rd.
North Potomac, MD 20878
merrileamayo@gmail.com
https://merrileamayo.com/ < >
240-304-0439 (cell)
301-977-2599 (landline)
Received on Wednesday, 31 July 2019 18:48:15 UTC