Re: Domain sketch

Hello all,

The issues that the discussion of this domain sketch raised have been 
continuing in a number of places, and i think they have become quite 
confusing. I don't especially want to reopen the discussion here right 
now, but will note a couple of things:

1. I have tried to summarize what I think made the discussion confusing 
<https://blogs.pjjk.net/phil/concepts-of-credentials-and-competences/>[1]. 
It's my own opinion so I wrote it as a blog post so as not to give it 
any hint representing anything else. My main conclusion is that we 
should be careful in defining what mean by various terms, and in doing 
so be aware that these terms may have other meanings to folk from other 
contexts.

2. Alex Jackl has been editing a document, which he shared here before, 
on proposed definitions Competence and Credentials 
<https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RIBR-X9yL4313f0TFccbc8S_d6n1jP0AvBsy4FYGgbA/edit#heading=h.kccyx6ndfco9>[2] 
and related things, which I think is heading in the right direction.

Best regards, Phil


1. https://blogs.pjjk.net/phil/concepts-of-credentials-and-competences/

2. 
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RIBR-X9yL4313f0TFccbc8S_d6n1jP0AvBsy4FYGgbA/edit#heading=h.kccyx6ndfco9

On 15/08/2019 11:02, Phil Barker wrote:
>
> 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.
>
> Here it is again. I'm thinking about putting it on the wiki, and 
> hoping that, along with the issue list 
> <https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Issues,_use_cases_and_requirements#Issues_open_for_consideration>, 
> it might serve as a useful way of introducing what we are about and 
> what we are doing.
>
> 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 <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.