New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Need property, ceterms:providesTransferValueFor and ceterms:receivesTransferValueFrom #916
Comments
Looking at the issues in your diagram Issue 1: My understanding (or assumption if you prefer) was that targetTransferValue would be the inverse of transferValueFrom, so the course would have the transfer value indicated. Issue 2: There is nothing in the data to say that the two courses (the bnode in the ACE-published data and the identified course in the customer published data) are the same, so it cannot replace it. Issue 3: As shown, Course A and Course B both have the target value independently, not as a set. BTW, that's true in solution 1 as well. Referring to your three problems I agree about solution being the best solution: writing the triples in full it looks like
RDF inferencing means that this is exactly the same as:
Given ACE are not in a position to look up all the URIs for all the courses, the normal open world solution would be for the Customer to make the statements # 1, if registry policy or tooling doesn't allow that then # 2 will provide the same data. BTW, on proposed solution 3: you can't point to a blank node in another graph. |
That wasn't my impression and it isn't indicated in the definition anywhere. That definition could apply to either side of things. The "target" properties are all fairly generic in their inherent meaning and are usually contextualized by some other part of the data. Also what would the inverse be, then, of transferValueFor?
Then your data has at least two objects describing the same Course as the sources of transfer value, which means they'd be taken as a set, which would be interpreted as saying that someone has to take two unusually similar courses in order to receive transfer value.
That's one interpretation, but then how would you express it if you wanted them to be considered a set?
The transferValueFrom and transferValueFor properties explicitly say that when they reference multiple resources, those resources are to be treated a set for/from which transfer value applies/originates. The TVP itself is the "grouping mechanism" in such a case. This was a deliberate part of its design in order to enable transfer value to come from or apply to sets of things. |
There is no need for ACE or any other credit recommender or credit articulator to have their customers also publish a Transfer Value Profile. We'll rule that out. It's not feasible as the role of ACE, as a recommender, and e.g., the role of a state agency such as Kansas, as an articulators (meaning they have a role in putting the articulation agreements in place and publishing the outcomes i.e., transfer value profiles. The organization that offers, for example, the course with credit recommendations has no role in republishing the transfer value determined by ACE standards. The role of the customer is to publish their courses and link to those credit recommendations or articulations. A recommender or articulator are not going to randomly lump TV profiles together. ACE versions their recommendations. If there's scenarios where more than 1 TV is inlcuded with a TVP, they would have logical relationship. E.g., a TV at a lower division level recommendation and a TV at an upper value recommendation for the same course. |
If the TVP does not point to the Course, then another TVP needs to be created which does. Otherwise you run into the issues I described in this post.
I am open to solutions which solve the "three main problems" I outlined in this post.
I agree the role of the customer is to publish their courses. However, I believe it is the role of the TVP author to point to the courses that the TVP needs to point to. But if the customer is to reference transfer value instead of the other way around, then it has to be done in a way which solves the three main problems I outlined.
I'm not sure what this is in reference to. I wasn't suggesting that TVPs would be grouped, I said that TVPs would be the grouping mechanism (ie one TVP points to 3 courses to say "the credit comes, collectively, from these 3 courses together") |
If this is a response to my post then it is based on a misunderstanding. I did not say that any customer would publish a Transfer Value Profile. I said they would publish a statement that had the identifier for an existing TVP as its subject. |
There is no set, just information about two things that may or may not be the same.
If you wanted them to be part of a set you would have to group them, either through a CTDL grouping, something with parts/members, probably a single LearningOpportunity with the two courses as parts; or you could use a native RDF grouping mechanism, one of the rdfs:containers. We don't do this, hence there is no set. |
Final Proposal: Create:
Create:
This needs to be closed with a comment concerning the issues created by using b nodes. Encourage publishers to publish Fors and Froms with CTIDs. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u3SaDBpcwpmtaCWfJdiqFJb9Tg2twewS/view?usp=sharing |
Should the comments in the above post be usage notes instead? Or perhaps "Other resources may be included for the full value" is appropriately a comment while "Refer to the referenced Transfer Value Profile for more information" should be characterized as a usage note? Also, should they be marked as inverse properties of transferValueFrom/transferValueFor, or does the disjointed grouping mean that wouldn't be an accurate assertion? |
I feel it's better as a comment based on the conversation we had about the reason for adding it. We had talked about them as inverse properties but they feel disjointed to me. I'm not sure what the ramification is with the CTDL if they aren't marked as inverse properties. I supposed it's harder to figure out what properties to use. |
Comment, I think not usage note: it seems more broad than "how to use this property" as it includes how to interpret data beyond this property. The situation seems a bit too complicated to say that they are inverseProperties: other factors need to be considered so there could be cases where it is not true. Even if it is always true we don't lose much by not stating it. We should document how we see these properties being used for some of the gnarly edge cases that came up in our discussion. |
Understood, we'll keep the comment as-is, then.
Not to belabor this, but should we add a usage note that effectively says "don't use this unless you have to"? |
Let's not: opens a can of worms around when would they "have to" that we might not want to highlight. Seems like a "don't press the big red button" scenario. |
These changes have been made in pending CTDL and noted in the history tracking. |
Major use case:
As a credentialing organization I need to publish my course, exam, or apprenticeship and link it to the Transfer Value Profile published by a third party including the transfer value recommendations published by American Council on Education and to articulated transfer value profiles such as those published by state agencies including Kansas Board of Regents.
To be clear, the credentialing organization does not need to publish a Transfer Value Profile. They simply want to indicate that their course, exam or apprenticeship has a targetTransferValueProfile published, in this case by ACE.
Currently, ACE is currently in process of publishing over 10,000 TVPs to the Registry https://credentialfinder.org/search?searchType=transfervalue&filteritemtext=American%20Council%20on%20Education:%20Owns%203432%20Transfer%20Value%20Profiles(s)&filterparameters={%22n%22:%22organizationroles%22,%22aid%22:1314,%22rid%22:[6,7]}. They issue transfer value recommmendations for courses, exams and apprenticeships. They are NOT going to publish those courses exams and apprenticeships for their customers. They are identifying the courses, exams and apprenticeships as blank nodes/references along with their owners (as blank nodes / references).
Further, ACE is not going to initially track the CTIDS of their customers course, exams, or apprenticeships.
We need to support the ability of credentialing organizations to point directly to transfer values that are recommended or articulated for their credentials, Learning Opps, and assessments.
**Need property, ceterms: targetTransferValueProfile
Definition: Transfer Value Profile for this resource.
Domain Includes: Credential, Learning Opportunity Profile, Learning Program, Course, Job, Occupation, Competency, and Assessment Profile.
Range Includes: transferValueFrom
**
The below diagram is here. CE team and Phil have edit access https://drive.google.com/file/d/1u3SaDBpcwpmtaCWfJdiqFJb9Tg2twewS/view?usp=sharing
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: