[USE CASE] Open Skills Assertion

[ottonomy]

Actor

Issuer

Submitter

Nate Otto, Badgr/Concentric Sky

User Story

As an issuer I would like to recognize that a learner holds a particular skill, for which a definition exists that was published by a neutral third party, such as an industry consortium.

This is distinct from the well known defined credential use case, in which the entity that publishes the credential definition is the only one who may issue that credential. A relying party must evaluate, "Is this credential and the issuer that offers trustworthy, and is the credential a good fit for my needs?"

In the Open Skills Assertion use case, the trust model is different, and a relying party must ask, "Is this skill definition the one I am looking for, and is this assertion's issuer a trustworthy issuer to be able to recognize this skill to my needs?" It's not necessary to

Data Concepts

• Skill Definition, published at a canonical URL, where machine-readable metadata is available. Probably includes a skill or competency statement, describing what people who hold the skill know or can do.
• Skill Claim, a claim in a Verifiable Credential by which an issuer asserts that a credential subject has completed, in a binary sense, a particular skill that has been defined.

Tags

• [x] issuer-to-subject
• [ ] subject-to-relying-party
• [ ] system-to-system
• [ ] peer-to-peer
• [ ] subject-initiated
• [ ] workforce
• [ ] k-12
• [ ] post-secondary
• [ ] informal
• [x] e2e (i.e. issuer-to-subject-to-relying-party)
• [x] multiple-issuers (i.e. multiple parties involved in credential issuance)

Tag Details

• issuer-to-subject: This relates to an issuer making a claim about a subject
• e2e: This affects the trust model by which a relying party evaluates the learning claim
• multiple-issuers: There is a skill definer issuer (that issues the skill definition) and a credential issuer (that issues the skill assertion)

[ottonomy]

Some Defined Achievement Assertion and Skill Assertion Examples.pdf

[kayaelle]

It's interesting that you chose to categorize the skill definer as an issuer. Suggestion to unpack that language when we get to the discussion.

Can you please add some details about the verification/consumption of the skills assertion?

[ottonomy]

It's interesting that you chose to categorize the skill definer as an issuer. Suggestion to unpack that language when we get to the discussion.

I think of the "Class" of an entity that "publishes stuff" related to credentials. Sometimes the "stuff" is assertions, sometimes it's defined achievements, sometimes it's skill definitions. I've used the term author to define the connection between a Skill definition and its creator in the above linked document.

Can you please add some details about the verification/consumption of the skills assertion?

As a verifier, I may receive a (presentation of a) credential from a holder that expresses a skill assertion. I inspect it with respect to these questions:

• Is the proof valid and associated with a key known to be associated with the declared issuer?
• Is the current status of the credential valid (not expired, not revoked)?
• Is this credential awarded to an identifier that I know to be associated with the user or learner who is presenting the credential? (if this was shared with me in a verifiable presentation, is that presentation valid and signed by a key known to be associated with the learner identity)
• Does this credential contain one or more skill claims for a skill that I understand?
• Do I recognize this issuer as an organization or individual and have reason to trust them as an issuer of educational credentials?
• Do I trust this issuer to be an adequate assessor of the skill(s) in question?