This page has been created to keep an up-to-date list of issues and questions that have not yet been resolved. Just so we don't forget!

Colour scheme:

Black = Questions
Green = resolved
Red/blue = comments/discussion

LOM Fields

Which LOM fields to require and which to recommend for COs and CFs? – See table below.

Current proposal:

LOM Element	Competency Object	Competency Framework
General-Identifier	Required as URI (1)	Required as URI (1)
General-Title	Required (1)	Required (1)
General-Language	Optional. (Not required as the language attribute is required for LanguageString entries.)	Optional. (Not required as the language attribute is required for LanguageString entries.)
General-Description	Recommended (1) - "supportingInfo" element can also be used	Recommended (1) - "supportingInfo" element can also be used
lifecycle-Version	Omit	Required (1)
Lifecycle-Contribute	Recommend to include ‘publisher’. Optional to include ‘author’ or other roles. (1 or more)	Recommend to include ‘publisher’. Optional to include ‘author’ or other roles. (1 or more)
Educational-learningResourceType	Required to be “competency object”	Required to be “competency framework”
Rights-CopyrightAndOtherRestrictions	Recommended (1)	Recommended (1)
Rights-Description	Recommended (1)	Recommended (1)
Healthcare LOM extension
healthcareEducation-targetAudience-profession	Optional (1 or more) What if a CO meant for one profession is included a framework for a different profession? Nothing to stop this from happening; just because a CO is authored for one group doesn't mean it can't be re-used in a framework for another group. What if the expected performance with respect to a CO is different for one group than for another? Expected performance is not captured by this spec; a future spec for milestones may capture this.	Recommended (see lom spec for recommended values). (1 or more) Maybe it only makes sense that frameworks be developed for specific profession(s), but competencies are profession-agnostic? This is why profession is optional for the CO but recommened for the CF.
healthcareEducation-targetAudience-specialty	Optional (1 or more)	Optional (see lom spec for recommended values). (1 or more)
general-keyword	Optional (1 or more)	Omit
educational-context	Optional (1 or more)	Recommended (vocabulary: “undergraduate professional education”; “graduate professional education”; “continuing professional development”). (1 or more)

Do we need to talk about how to use the ‘rights’ element? (Probably not since its use is governed by lom)

Competency Objects

What to do about synonyms? We decided to not include a sysnonyms element. However, if we allow topics to be CO's (we have so far) then it would be really helpful to have a "synonymous title" field for searchability. The "keywords" LOM element can be used for this.

Are we maintaining the name “category” for the element which represents the type of CO? We decided ‘yes’ but to use the guide and even text within the spec to indicate what we mean by ‘category’.

Competency Framework

How does a Framework indicate which CO's are included/excluded (e.g. the uOttawa framework may include some but not all CanMeds CO's)?

We decided that the CF can refer to external COs by using their URIs.
Which CO's are included in a framework is implied by which CO's are inlcuded on the list of relations within the CF document.

Add an element for human-readable (with formatting tags) information and/or URLs to supporting documentation to the CF spec. – Done - this is the SupportingInformation element.

Within a CF, can you add a relationship to another CF (i.e. treat the other CF as a CO; "Competency Object X is broaderthan Competency Framework Y")? If so, what are the implications of having an external CF as narrower than a CO? As broader than a CO? Do the relationships within the external CF have to be restated? What if an organization just wants to incorporate part of an external CF into their own CF? What if a CO, A, from one CF is related as broader than X from another framework – does that imply that anything defined as narrower than X in the external framework is a descendent of A?

See CFs within CFs - Examples page for illustrated examples
This debate could get pretty large and theoretical – can refer to the applicable use case(s) to define the scope and needs.
Note this is distinct from ‘cross-mapping one CF to another’
Also distinct from ‘mapping my curriculum/RLOs/assessments to a bespoke CF and to an external CF’ – in which case the external CF does not need to be re-created nor mapped to the bespoke CF.

We decided to ALLOW the following statements:

CF includes CF - all objects and relationships from the external framework are included in the framework
CO is broader than CF - all objects and relationships from the external framework are included in the framework as descendants of the CO, with the top-level objects in the external CF being children (narrower than) the CO.

When a framework includes external CO's, are the relations among those CO's defined by the source framework, or must those relations be re-stated in the new Framework? They must be re-stated. Only when one CF includes another CF do all the objects and relations in that second CF become part of the first CF.

External objects

How would an external object's metadata point to a Competency Object?

How to capture data about an assessment event and a person's competencies? – We decided to defer this to a follow-up specification.

Mapping two different frameworks

Need a mechanism for mapping the CO's of one framework to the CO's of another. (This is different than including part of another organization's framework in my framework). Mappings such as "equivalent to" have major implications! – We decided to defer this to a follow-up specification.

General

What to do about context? Should this be captured whenever a CO is linked to something external (e.g. an assessment event)? – We decided to defer this to a follow-up specification.

Milestones/Levels

Published competency frameworks are now starting to include 'milestones', which describe a progression from novice to expert for a given competency, along with the framework. How can these be captured? We decided to defer this to a follow-up specification.

New Versions and Retired COs

What to do when a new version of a CO comes out? If it is a minor change (e.g. syntax, wording, spelling fix) then there is no need to release a new version of the CO - just overwrite the old one. However, if there is a MEANINGFUL change to the CO, such as something that changes its scope, then a new CO with a new URL should be published and the old CO should be retired. A new version of the framework should be published that indicates how the new CO relates to other COs.

Are new versions of COs allowed? No.

Are new versions of CFs allowed? Yes. A new version should be published whenever new COs are introduced or old ones are retired. Each version of the framework should have its own URL. There should be one URL that always redirects to the most current version of the framework.

How to keep track of old/retired COs and their relations? Not yet determined.

.

Page tree

Unresolved issues and questions