1 / 10

Towards competence-related interoperability

This workshop summary addresses the significant challenges and assumptions surrounding the interoperability of competencies, based on discussions led by Simon Grant, an independent consultant affiliated with JISC CETIS. Key points include the necessity for shared definitions, the inadequacy of current solutions, and suggestions for distributed systems over central registries. The text also explores practical implementation options, such as competence equivalence managers and integration with tools and services, ultimately highlighting the critical nature of interoperability for effective learning and employment pathways.

bethany-king
Télécharger la présentation

Towards competence-related interoperability

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. TEN Competence Workshop Manchester, 2007-01-11 Simon Grant Independent Consultant JISC CETIS Portfolio SIG Joint Coordinator Towards competence-related interoperability

  2. Assumptions • Interoperability of competence and related definitions would be useful • There is no good solution at present • Few definitions are even available at URIs • Related only internally • No time to justify those points in detail • My TEN Competence Sofia paper is also relevant

  3. Interoperability logical options • Do nothing and let chaos grow • Central registries for competence definitions • I have previously suggested this kind of approach • I no longer think it is practically plausible • Many people seem to agree • Distributed, interconnected system • FOAF and XFN give a general idea • Don't forget about XCRI :-)

  4. Substance to interconnection • Equivalence between definitions • Non-equivalence • Satisfaction • “that one there at least covers this one here” • Contribution • “that one is part of or helps towards this one” • maybe “this one aims to help towards that one” • Are references local, remote or both?

  5. Side comment about levels • An issue which needs to be resolved • Levels should be specific to a competence • Not generic or part of a framework • in general there are no universal levels • Having levels in a framework invites problems • people's competence is mixed in any level system • people argue about level definitions and allocations • see also my TEN Competence Sofia paper

  6. Distributed interoperability • Each local site has: • Competence defs based on RCD / HR-XML / ... & • either additional details (how to integrate with specs?) • or just add a single link to ontology / relationships file • Possible ontology / relationships file or service • RDF/OWL or XTM or either • need to agree which of the relationships to have • relationships can be to local or remote definitions

  7. Implementation • Desire to remain binding-neutral • Details to be worked out through projects

  8. Tools and services: e.g. • Competence equivalence manager • could notify of any equivalences added to definitions you have noted as equivalent to yours • useful to maintain quality and reputation • prompts non-equivalence declarations as needed • could draw graph of equivalent competences • Competence definition search and browse • could use a bit like a thesaurus • could also use KM tools

  9. Possible integration /mashup • With XCRI-like services: • find courses through which I gain this competence • what courses can I take with these competences? • With employment / recruitment: similarly • Combined: what courses for what jobs etc. • There's nothing in principle preventing these at present: the point is that without interoperability, lists are very short and practically useless

  10. Thanks and References • Thanks for your interest! • Both of these references represent a position where I imagined central registries to be possible. But apart from that, they give a lot of useful detail about other aspects of the issues. • Grant, S. (2006) Frameworks of competence: common or specific? Proceedings of International Workshop in Learning Networks for Lifelong Competence Development, TENCompetence Conference. September 12th, Sofia, Bulgaria: TENCompetence. Retrieved November 2006, from http://dspace.learningnetworks.org/handle/1820/746 • Grant, S. (2005). SPWS: Introducing the Skills Meta-Framework. SPWS project deliverable. http://www.elframework.org/projects/spws/SPWS-meta-framework-final.pdf/view is as delivered; http://www.inst.co.uk/clients/jisc/SPWSintro.doc is a maintained version. • For contact details see my home page through Google

More Related