The drawback of the IEEE RCD specification is that competencies cannot be grouped or related to each other. Hence, the structure does not allow

1. to build complex competencies from simpler ones, e.g. by using an isPartOf relationship,
2. nor is it possible to establish or name relationships between concept definitions at all.

Claude Ostyn is working on on a new standard data definition, Simple Reusable Competency Map (SRCM) which aims “to be used for describing, referencing, and exchanging data about the relationships between competencies, primarily in the context of online and distributed learning�. The basic idea is to concatenate RCDs in a in direct acyclic graph. This enables to define relations between competencies in a top-down manner. For instance suppose you have the following DAG and you interpret edges as an isPartOf relationship. Each node in the DAG can denote either a RCD or a SRCP.

• Read the first DAG as follows. If Y is the only child of X then proficiency in X requires proficiency in Y and proficiency in Y implies proficiency in X. Similarly, proficiency in A requires proficiency in B AND C, and proficiency in B and C implies proficiency in A.
• Different complex competencies might share more simple sub competencies.

The usage of DAGs and the implicit interpretation of of edges as isPartOf solves problem 1). I am not quite sure whether the standard is also open for the description of other relationships than the “isPartOf” which would solve 2). The missing information is a element in the data model that refers to or describes a relationship. I have to investigate this.

To understand SRCMs data mode, I made some graphical representations. I will briefly describe those. Red nodes denote manadatory elements, blue nodes are optional elements, edges represent sub information elements.

• It’s unclear to what rcdRef is referring to. I could not find any explanation for this.
• Referential is a boolean placeholder which indicates whether the structure is self-contained or whether it refers to some other SRCMs. In principle, this value could be deduced automatically while going through the graph nodes.
• The Metadata element can include any information, but it is recommended to stick to LOM here and to put anything else in Extensions.
• The crucial information is within the Graph element whic contains a list of nodes, a reference to entry nodes, nodes without parents, and a reference to the “root” default entry node.

So, to break it down, the very interesting information of this structure is inside the node type.

The node type has the following elements:

• rcdRef refers to a RCD if the node is not a grouping.Otrherwise it is nil.
• SymLink might refer to a SRCM to include a map defined somewhere else.
• A model element might refer to some model or vocabulary and use a “label” to define a class of nodes, RCDs respictively.
• Each node refers to its parents.
• Each node lists its children.
• each node lists a set of rules.

Relative to the node’s context children node’s have additional information. This is:

• they have a weight which contributes to the calculation of the parents proficiency.
• dataRequired field indicating whether the proficiency information should go into rollup calculations.
• they have a required proficiency value
• and a desired proficiency value.

Note that a competency’s or map’s weight and proficiency values might differ in different contexts. For instance, depending on a educational level, one might expect higher proficiency values for higher educational levels.

To be honest, I do not understand the definition between required and desired proficiency.

Rules define rollup computations for all children, including proficiency required/desired, rollup method and an additional value depending on the rollup method. Methods can be: all, any, fraction, units, mean, and other. Rules proficiency statements are made for the context and they override the requirements specified for individual nodes of the context.

Examples are:

• A required 80% proficiency value for any sub competency, i.e., just one sub competence needs to be fullfilled in order to imply a proficiency in the current node.
• A proficiency mean of 80% requires that the mean of the proficiency values of the sub comptenecies is at least 80%.
• Node RX refernces RCD X and specifies a proficiency required of 70%. However, node RX is a child of RA that specifies that for child RX the proficiency required is 80%. When rolling up comptency status information from RX into the comptency status information of RA, the proficiency required used to evaluate whether a measure satisfies the requirement will be 80%.

Some conclusions:

1. Finally, a data structure model for relating comptencies with each other. At least for isPartOf.
2. The data structure model mixes competency structures/relations with proficiency information. I am not sure whether this approach meets my expectations.
3. It is unclear what the difference is between required and desired proficiency.
4. Why should proficiency information in rules (on the context) override individual node information for the context. Isn’t it the other way round? Nodes are more specific than general rules?
5. It is unclear whar rcdRef means in the context of the rcm element

Well, it is good to know that there is some solution for the interoperability of complex competency definitions. Whether I will use it at some point, I do not know.