LEAP relationships

From CETISwiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Part of LEAP 2.0 > Constructs

Contents

Introduction

In the LEAP 2.0 model, information is organised in discrete, reusable packages, rather than in tree structures. This gives immensely more flexibility in terms of what is related to what. In the old-style hierarchical models like IMS LIP, most information related to an element had to be included within the element. But in this information model, each separable part of the portfolio information is free-standing.

Relationships in LEAP 2.0

See the LEAP predicates page for details of relationships and other properties or attributes.

See the LEAP classes page for details of what the classes are.

General relationships between the general types of part

These relationships are normally fall-back relationships which would be used only if a more specific relationship, between more specific types of part, are not defined. "Is part of" has a natural inverse, "has part", which is not listed here separately, but is implied.

  destination entry tag
source
entry is part of,
follows,
precedes,
relation
relation
tag relation is part of,
relation

Detailed relationships between the detailed parts

(Omitting the generic relationships in the table above, to be elaborated)

Relationships with other people

Recording relationships between the individual who is the focus of a portfolio and other people may be taken from XFN for example. Note that a relationship is typically between on (or sometimes more) personalities of the portfolio subject and one (or sometimes more) personalities of the other individual. If the other individual has defined personalities for themselves, the URL used for the other should if possible specify the personality, not the individual as a whole.

Relationships with organisations

Here what is required is a vocabulary to define the role someone can play in an organisation. It seems unlikely that a general-purpose vocabulary could cover the myriad possible roles and role definitions, more likely would be that each organisation published a vocabulary of the roles it recognises. This might come, for example, from a company handbook.

If, as is currently likely, no published relevant corporate definitions of roles exist, roles need to be described as text.

Implementation

See

Relationship vocabulary sources


UKLeaP relationships for comparison

See also the mapping of parts between UKLeaP and LEAP 2.0 This is the original table prepared for UKLeaP in May of 2004, and published in the draft for public consultation. It is given here for reference only!

This is not part of LEAP 2.0!

destination activity competency goal interest product qcl assertion,
reflexion
source
activity is part of,
precedes
evidences,
shows up,
supports
supports evidences supports supports,
supplements
affiliation supports supports supports supports supports
competency evidences,
supports,
precedes
is part of,
precedes
supports evidences supports supports
goal aims at supports,
precedes
aims at aims at
interest supports supports supports is part of,
precedes
supports supports supports
product evidences,
supports
evidences,
shows up
supports evidences supports,
is part of,
precedes
supports
qcl evidences,
supports
evidences supports evidences supports supports
assertion attests,
compiles,
evaluates,
presents
attests,
compiles,
presents
attests,
compiles,
evaluates,
presents
attests,
compiles,
evaluates,
presents
attests,
compiles,
evaluates,
presents
attests,
compiles,
evaluates,
presents
attests,
compiles,
evaluates,
presents
reflexion evaluates,
reflects on
reflects on evaluates,
reflects on
evaluates,
reflects on
evaluates,
reflects on
evaluates,
reflects on
evaluates,
precedes,
reflects on