Page tree
Skip to end of metadata
Go to start of metadata

“Includes” and “Relations”

Proposed changes for consideration: The CompetencyFramework document will contain two elements that describe the objects in the framework and their relations:

  • <Includes> – will simply list the URLs of all objects included in the framework and any frameworks included in the framework
  • <Relations> - will list the relations between the objects and frameworks within the framework
    • Broader/narrower relations:
      • "CO broaderthan CO" is permissible
      • "CO broaderthan CF" is permissible
    • Unspecified relations (can be used for 'see also' to aid navigation)
      • "CO is related to CO" is permissible

The following sample XML…

<CompetencyFramework>
<Title>The Universal Doctor</Title>
<Includes>
	<InclCompObj url=”A.xml”/>
	<InclCompObj url=”B.xml”/>
	<InclCompObj url=”C.xml”/>
	<InclCompObj url=”D.xml”/>
</Includes>
<Relations>
	<Relation>A broaderThan B</Relation>
	<Relation>A broaderThan C</Relation>
</Relations>
</CompetencyFramework>


Would translate to a framework that looks like…

 
.

.

.

.

Linking to External Objects/Frameworks

.

Example 1 - Within CF-1: Some of the COs from another framework are to be included, but not all.

 

Proposal: This can be represented by relations within CF-1 as follows:

  • A broaderthan X
  • X broaderthan Y
  • X broaderthan Z
  • Y broaderthan C
  • Y broaderthan D

The RLO does address D, Y, X and A.  These paths can all be traced by directing the computer towards CF-1.

.

.

Example 2 - Within CF-1: "CO-A is broader than CF-2"

 

Proposal: When an object is broader than another CF, all of the objects and relations within the latter CF are implied to be included in the first CF.  Ultimately, in this example, A is broader then X and Y because of the following relations:

  • Within CF-1: "A broaderthan CF-2"
  • Within CF-2: "Includes X"
  • Within CF-2: "Includes Y"

The RLO does address competency A, and the route can be traced as long as the computer is 'aware' of CF-1 (which can point the computer towards CF-2 for the additional relationships).

.

.

Example 3 – Within CF-1: "CF-1 includes CF-2"


Proposal: When a CF includes another CF, all of the COs and relations within the latter CF are implied to be included in the former CF.  Therefore, in this example, the orange objects and relations between them become part of CF-1, without having to re-state all the relations amongst the orange COs.  W and A are both top objects within CF-1.

The RLO does become related to CF-1 but it does not address competency A.

A more practical example of how this might be used is:

 
In this example, the uOttawa framework includes the CanMeds framework.  In practice, what this means is that "Medical Expert," "Communicator," and the other top-level obejcts within CanMeds become top-level objects within uOttawa; plus uOttawa adds "Person" as a top-level object.  All of the objects and relations within CanMeds become part of the uOttawa framework.

.

Example 4 - Relation within CF-1: "CO-A is broader than CO-X"

This example is similar to Example 1.

 

Proposal: When one CF includes a CO from another framework, NONE of the relations from the external framework are implied.  Any desired relations must be re-stated.  Thus in this case, CF-1 includes X but none of the descendents of X.

The RLO does theoretically address both X and A, but in order to follow this path, the computer will have to be 'aware' of both CF-2 and CF-1.

.
.

Example 5 - Within CF-1: "CO-Z is broader than CO-A"

This example is also similar to examples 1 and 4.

 
Proposal: When one CF includes a CO from another framework, NONE of the relations from the external framework are implied.  Any desired relations must be re-stated.  Thus in this case, CF-1 includes Z as a top-level competency, but none of the relations of Z from CF-2 are carried over.  In other words, competency Z is being re-used within CF-1.

The RLO does address competency Z.  This can be determined by tracing the relationships within CF-1.  However, the route from the RLO to competency X would only be traceable by a computer that was 'aware' of both CF-1 and CF-2.

.

Example 6 - Within CF-1: "CF-2 is broader than CO-A"

Statements of the form "CF broaderthan CO" are NOT permissible.

.

.

Example 7 - Within CF-1: "CF-2 is broader than CF-1"

Statements of the form "CF broaderthan CF" are NOT permissible.

.

.


  • No labels