Wikidata:Property proposal/ISCED category orientation

ISCED category orientation

This property was requested after extensive consultation with the Wikidata community and experts on ed tech, OER, global and national curriculum, education policy, and digitization. Over the two rounds of the consultation, we received input from 31 individuals representing various global perspectives and areas of expertise to aid in the full implementation of the Wikidata for Education project.

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Generic

Not done

Description

International Standard Classification of Education category (based on focus/orientation) applicable to an educational program

Data type

Item

Domain

property in education (Q8434)

Example 1

National curriculum of Ghana for Junior High School 1 (Q113463634) → lower secondary general education (Q113585341)

ISCED category orientation

lower secondary general education (Q113585341)

edit

Code

24

0 references

add reference

add value

Example 2

twelfth grade (Q986388) → upper secondary general education (Q113585343)

ISCED category orientation

upper secondary general education (Q113585343)

edit

Code

34

0 references

add reference

add value

Example 3

Year Fourteen (Q8050866) → upper secondary school (Q57775519)

ISCED category orientation

upper secondary school (Q57775519)

edit

Code

35

0 references

add reference

add value

Planned use

This property will be used to show the categorization of an a local educational stage against its corresponding international categorization. Read more about WD4E Data Model Document v1.0.Check out how it is used in the test environment Q224201.

Wikidata project

Wikidata for Education

Motivation

ISCED category orientation is a way of categorizing educational programs based on their focus or orientation. ISCED category orientation helps to categorize educational programs based on their focus and purpose, which can be useful for educational planning, policy development, and monitoring educational trends. It can also help individuals make informed decisions about their educational and career paths based on their interests and goals.

This property will be applied on items that has educational year (Q10291405) as a value for the property instance of (P31).

This will allow comparison of a local education level with the ISCED standard. This is helpful so educationists can relate with standards to manage pedagogy and education outcomes. When this property is approved, it will allow researchers to list all the educational levels aligned with the ISCED category orientation equal to ‘lower secondary general education’ in the countries of Ghana and Germany? This will give us the levels as they’re named in Ghana and Germany for example, and would help us compare between these two and even more. The ISCED Category Orientation property proposal is a valuable initiative that will provide a standardized and consistent way of categorizing educational programs based on their focus and purpose. By doing so, it will enable us to improve educational planning, enhance accountability, and support the development of effective education systems globally. For further reading, kindly check International Standard Classification of Education 2011 (page 14, pages 36-37, pages 41-42, pages, page 50, pages 53-54, page 58, and page 61)

Discussion

Comment Please look at other property proposals for what your examples should look like. This doesn't work, and it's not clear what you're proposing without good examples. ArthurPSmith (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The examples should be clear now. Andrews Lartey (talk) 08:25, 25 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ArthurPSmith This has been fixed. Dnshitobu (talk) 13:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The property is not ready because it currently does not have valid examples. The examples don't tell us which item is supposed to get a statement to refer to which other item. It's quite unclear whether the item for the numbers are meant which would probably be a bad idea. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 09:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKl Thank you for drawing our attention to it. It has been corrected now and you can take look. Dnshitobu (talk) 14:09, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The example still maps it to text and not to items. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:44, 23 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@ChristianKlKindly take a look at the new changes Dnshitobu (talk) 10:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no the examples still make no sense. please review how other proposals format their examples. Also, I feel like at a minimum a property proposal for "ISCED category orientation" would explain what ISCED is, what a category means in this context and what an orientation is in this context. I'm sorry this proposal is just poorly formed. BrokenSegue (talk) 12:24, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also this proposal says this "Has two sub qualifiers - code and label." but never lists any detail about what these qualifiers look like or what values they accept? I'm baffled. BrokenSegue (talk) 12:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this seems that it could maybe be a case for an external identifier or maybe a "match" kind of property? Abbe98 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Abbe98Your comment is not clear, may be you can point to that specific property you are referring to so that it can guide our conversation. Dnshitobu (talk) 21:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Comment We appreciate the efforts and the time you spent reviewing the proposed properties. We are reviewing all your comments and some collated pieces of advice and would update the proposals soon and reply accordingly to all question. Dnshitobu (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose i'm not clear on what relationship this property is trying to encode. i'm also suspicious of the voting pattern above. BrokenSegue (talk) 00:23, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dnshitobu: The current examples of this property are not the way it's used in the test data and as BrokenSegue said, the current proposal is not clear. Abbe98's comment that this looks like an external identifier to me makes sense to me.

@Asaf (WMF), Ijon: You are listed as advisor on the Wikidata for Education talk page. If you are interested in the project, maybe you can help with bringing the property proposal into a form that makes more sense. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 14:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ChristianKl It is being reviewed and we will keep you posted once we are done. Thank you for spending time to review it. Dnshitobu (talk) 14:27, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Lectrician1, @BrokenSegue, @ChristianKl, @ArthurPSmith We are very happy you have spent sometime reviewing this property request, a few changes have been made to it and we would be happy if you could take a look, comment or recommend on best practices so that we get this done and we all can move on. Thank you for your support all this while. As for the Strong Support comments, we made a presentation at a forum about how we are making efforts to digitize curriculum data on Wikidata and asked for their support in reviewing the proposal and for whatever reasons best known to them (We believe it was out of excitement), they came to give all our proposals strong support. Dnshitobu (talk) 11:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dnshitobu

Oppose I think you had plenty of time to find a good model, and you are coming here with something that has "name" as a string as a qualifier. You also still ignoring Abbe98's request.

At this point it's likely best to just mark these properties undone. If you want this data in Wikidata, don't create a data model together with people who don't understand Wikidata. If the claim about you having experienced Wikidata editors as advisors is true, sit down with them and talk about how your data could be integrated into Wikidata. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 12:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ChristianKl (A) Thank you for bringing this to my attention and thank you for spending time reviewing our proposals. This is a pilot project and we are looking at how Wikidata can handle school curricula from different countries by its linked data structure. I apologize for my mistake in the last update. In fact, I was supposed to do it off Wikidata, ask for validation from my team before publishing it here. That was my bad and I don’t think this would happen again. In the interim, we have moved the property to draft to fix the necessary issues with the property and once we are done with all relevant changes, we will keep you posted on that. I appreciate your feedback and will take it into account going forward.

Please have look at the following queries:

Five uploaded curricula data

Science Curriculum data on Listeria

Social Studies curriculum for Basic 7 Dnshitobu (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"we have moved the property to draft" what is this supposed to mean? It seems that you wrote draft into the status which is not a value that means anything in the Wikidata process.

Removing the proposal from the generic page would be a way to not have it take space on that page (we currently have so many entries on the page that not all are listed).

As far as looking at handling different school curricula, your examples don't show any sign of you thinking about how curricula from different countries fit into the model. ChristianKl ❪✉❫ 20:26, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose the relationship should be in the other direction. Lectrician1 (talk) 12:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lectrician1 This is well noted sir. Dnshitobu (talk) 16:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not done, no consensus of proposed property at this time based on the above discussion. Regards, ZI Jony ^(Talk) 19:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]