Alignment with Europass and the Qualifications Dataset Register (ELM)

[larinyo]

Idea

Map the OACC canonical course model to the European Learning Model (ELM), the vocabulary behind Europass and the Qualifications Dataset Register (QDR) where Member States publish qualifications and learning opportunities, so that an alliance catalogue can exchange data with that ecosystem in both directions.

Why

• Universities and national bodies already describe qualifications and learning opportunities in the ELM for Europass; an alliance catalogue that speaks the same vocabulary avoids a second description of the same course.
• A course or micro-credential published by an alliance could later connect to credentials (European Digital Credentials for Learning) and mobility flows without re-keying data.
• OACC's canonical model is deliberately close to what universities run (derived from the Open Education API, OOAPI v5, plus alliance-defined attributes); an ELM mapping would be an export and import profile on top of it, not a change of the model.

Scope to evaluate

1. Field-by-field mapping of the canonical course and offering (texts per language, ISCED-F, ECTS, EQF level, levels, teaching languages, delivery modes, dates, application details, alliance attributes) to the ELM learning opportunity and learning achievement specification classes; list what has no counterpart on either side.
2. Export: an ELM/JSON-LD representation of published courses, next to the existing OOAPI v5 read API, so an alliance can publish its joint offer to the QDR or let it be harvested.
3. Import: pulling descriptions from the QDR where a university already publishes there, as a fourth ingestion channel, with the same validation and publication rules as the other three.
4. Identifiers: how ELM identifiers (qualification, learning opportunity, awarding body) relate to OACC's course codes and organizations, and how ISCED-F and EQF values line up.

Open questions

• Which ELM application profile and version the QDR currently accepts for learning opportunities (courses, micro-credentials), and where the published examples are.
• How the register is queried and fed (API, bulk files), and who may publish: a university, an alliance, a national body.
• Whether this belongs in the canonical model (needs an ADR, as any canonical change does) or stays an import/export profile.

Status

Evaluation only. No change is planned until the mapping has been done against the QDR documentation and real examples. Comments from anyone working with Europass, the ELM or the QDR are very welcome.

[larinyo]

First step done: a field-by-field mapping of OACC's course model to the European Learning Model (LOQ 3.3.1), with a worked JSON-LD example and the QDR coverage measured for one alliance's countries: docs/research/elm-mapping.md

Findings in short: course = LearningAchievementSpecification, offering = LearningOpportunity, university = Organisation; LOQ 3.3.1 is enough for an export without changing the canonical model; importing from the QDR is not useful yet for these countries (universities appear as degree programmes or accreditation records, not at course level). Open points: who may publish on behalf of partner universities, how joint offers are identified, and the non-formal micro-credential profile announced for ELM 3.4. No implementation is planned before those are clarified.

[larinyo]

Update: the study now also covers micro-credentials (section 10: how the Council Recommendation's 16 elements map to ELM, which apply to a catalogue entry, and how a credential can point back to the catalogue) and the German QDR dataset (a vocational further-training feed, with almost no higher-education entries). The recommendation is unchanged: no import channel, a thin export designed now, and no change to the canonical model before the answers on publishing rights and ELM 3.4.

docs/research/elm-mapping.md

[larinyo]

Update: answers from DG EMPL's ELM/Europass team

The ELM/Europass team at DG EMPL has answered most of the open questions of the study. In short:

• Publishing is per Member State. Each country controls the learning opportunities published for it. An alliance partner can publish only with delegation from its Member State (the QDR delegation option), and one account cannot publish a dataset spanning several countries. So OACC will not publish an alliance-wide dataset. The export will produce one dataset per country and organisation, which the university (with delegation) or the national body then publishes.
• Joint offers: several providers (providedBy) on the learning opportunity, or several awarding bodies on the awarding opportunity. Group can represent the alliance.
• A credit-bearing BIP or short course is formal learning.
• Micro-credentials: the application profile under development is a standalone profile for issuing credentials (EDC). The catalogue export does not need to wait for ELM 3.4.
• Validation: there is no public validator; countries test their datasets in the QDR acceptance environment. Accreditation is expressed at organisation level; alliance labels can go in additional notes.
• Credentials may point to a catalogue URL, but the learning opportunity still needs its mandatory fields.

Revised plan: a thin export on ELM 3.3.1, split by country and organisation. It covers the fields Member States agreed as mandatory (title, identifier, provider and location, ISCED-F, learning outcomes, language of instruction, course homepage) plus the recommended ones OACC already holds (ECTS, dates, mode, entry requirements, duration). We would test it in one country's acceptance environment with a partner that has delegation.

Still open: whether learning opportunities without a qualification or EQF level are shown and ranked like the others in Europass search.

Updated study (new section 11 and answers under each question in section 9): docs/research/elm-mapping.md

If you publish learning opportunities for a Member State, or hold a delegation in the QDR, we would like to hear how it works in practice.