You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository has been archived by the owner on Apr 28, 2023. It is now read-only.
In Tertiary Education Evidence academic programme language and
in Course the course language
has cardinality of 0..1
but should have 0..*
to reflect courses given in more than one language - as already done with language of instruction in diploma supplement.
The semantics of programme language vs. language of instruction vs. course language is not sufficiently clear whereas the language of the evidence seems to be missing.
This issue was found by the University of Mannheim and Universität des Saarlandes and Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes within the 2nd German call for comments.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Thanks @XHochschuleDE for your comment. Indeed, we will update the cardinality of courseLanguage to allow multilinguality.
However, related to the language, we have the following attributes;
TertiaryEducationEvidence.language, with definition "The language in which the Tertiary Education Evidence is issued."
TertiaryEducationDiplomaSupplementEvidence.academicProgrammeLanguage, with definition "The language in which the qualification was officially delivered and examined."
TertiaryEducationDiplomaSupplementEvidence.languageOfInstruction, with definition "The different languages in which the programme was given."
CourseResult.courseLanguage, with definition "Main language in which the course was taught."
As far as we are concerned, the language of evidence is not missing. What would be your suggestion(s) to improve clarity? 👍
In Tertiary Education Evidence
academic programme language
andin Course the
course language
has cardinality of
0..1
but should have
0..*
to reflect courses given in more than one language - as already done with
language of instruction
in diploma supplement.The semantics of programme language vs. language of instruction vs. course language is not sufficiently clear whereas the language of the evidence seems to be missing.
This issue was found by the University of Mannheim and Universität des Saarlandes and Hochschule für Technik und Wirtschaft des Saarlandes within the 2nd German call for comments.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: