9. My previous post covered how to do common competence features in different structures, typically where the structures share context. But what about when the two structures are from quite different starting points? Equivalences are harder to identify, but it may be useful to document other relationships.
8. In the last two posts, I've set out some logic for simple competence structures and for more complex cases. But we still need to consider how to link across different structures, because only then will the structures start to become really useful.
This review of the JISC-funded CPD-Eng project was done in conjunction with the JISC "Benefits Realisation" work, because this project in particular has a lot to do with portfolio technology and interoperability, and then with skills and competences in professional development. Recommendations involving Leap2A come partly from PIOP 3 work.
7. In my previous post, I explained how SKOS relationships can be used to represent the basics of competence structures. But in one of the examples cited, the QAA Subject Benchmark Statement for honours level agriculture related studies, the aspect of level of attainment is present, and this is not easily covered by the SKOS broader and narrower relations just by themselves. Let me explain in some more detail.
6. In the earlier post on structure, I was looking for the structure of a single "definition" of "what is required". In following that line of enquiry, I drew attention to one of the UK National Occupational Standards (NOSs), in horticulture as it happened. Other UK NOSs share a similar structure, and each one of these could be seen as setting out a kind of relationship structure between competences in that occupational area.
