LEAP parts

Part of LEAP 2.0

Introduction
The purpose of this page is to present general reasons for the particular parts which should be recognised as part of the LEAP 2.0 information model, and to give the conclusions to debate about these. Also, for reference, this should include any mappings between other sets of parts, such as those in IMS LIP, UKLeaP and IMS ePortfolio.

Evidence for the actual use of particular parts should be put in the page for that part.

Review of parts used by particular systems can be reviewed in a page for that system.

Any actual debate should be carried out on the discussion page.

The current list of LEAP 2.0 classes is kept on the LEAP classes page.

General rationale
Without wanting to revert to discussing "what is a portfolio", perhaps we can agree that presentation portfolios generally represent information related to a person, for various purposes. One purpose is for the information to be viewed as evidence about the nature, qualities and attributes of that person and their abilities, by particular audiences. This can for in variety of contexts, from formal assessment, through presentation of CV material for application for an opportunity, to a general presentation to friends or family expressing ones sense of self. Another purpose is to help the individual reflect on what they have done and achieved, and to plan for the future: this is close to the core definition of PDP, personal development planning. One of the strengths of the e-portfolio concept is that many purposes can be served using information drawn from the same sources, without unnecessary duplication.

Existing and prior practice and artefacts
This has existed in various areas.
 * Portfolios of works, activities or products, with possible reflection or narrative, for assessment (e.g. for qualifications or professional grades)
 * Application forms, CVs and covering letters
 * Information supplied to recruitment or professional agencies
 * Autobiography and autobiographical sketches
 * Information kept on social networking sites and services
 * Records of achievement
 * Individual learning plans
 * Personal development planning and plans
 * Action planning and plans more generally

What kinds of information can be inferred from purposes and practice?
Firstly, there are the kinds of things that are written, typically by the user, but also potentially by other people, specifically for the portfolio. These kinds of things can be grouped together as "entries".
 * Writing, works in any media, or any resources, authored by the person
 * Writing, or works in any media, with the person as the subject (or a subject), authored by someone else
 * Some of these can be claims about abilities or attributes of the person, to which evidence could be attached
 * Activities performed by the person, or events in which the person has participated or had a part
 * Activities or events in which the person plans or hopes to participate
 * Goals and targets (including for knowledge or ability) that the person plans or hopes to achieve
 * (Learning or other action plans are likely to include both goals and planned activities)
 * Past achievements and attainments, including those that evidence knowledge or ability
 * Relationships with other people and with organisations

Then there are the ways of labelling or classifying entries, relating them to other entries. These can be thought of as "tags".
 * Labels to do with personal ability, knowledge, skill, competence, etc. which may be particular relevant for claims relating to applications for opportunities
 * Labels to do with interests, motives and values

Setting the LEAP 2.0 parts into the context of the Dublin Core
Following the Dublin Core DCMI Abstract Model, the LEAP parts are seen as classes in a class hierarchy, where some more refined classes are sub-classes of other more basic classes.

UKLeaP
The UKLeaP elements also appear in the discussion of LEAP relationships.

UKLeaP affiliation
The UKLeaP element was taken directly from IMS LIP, of which the data structure can be seen here and the diagram here. A fundamental part of the affiliation structure was the role structure, which is just a description of the role played, together with dates. The other vital part of the affiliation structure is the organisation to which the person is or was affiliated.

In LEAP 2.0 nothing is lost if a role can be treated as just another activity. There is only a minor distinction in people's descriptions: activities proper tend to be recounted as "I did..." or similar, whereas roles tend to be recounted as "I was..." or "I used to be...". The boundary lines are in any case blurred.

A role as activity could be treated as a parent activity to activities done while in that role.

UKLeaP evaluation
In IMS LIP (the information model can be seen at 6.11 within the activity structure, and here is the diagram) and UKLeaP, an evaluation was a sub-element to an activity. The basic idea was that an activity might be evaluated, and if it was, the details of the evaluation would be kept in that substructure. However, this made no attempt to factor out the method of evaluation. In LEAP 2.0, the representation of these concepts hinges around the assertion not the activity. If the evaluation was an assessment which is documented somewhere, a link can be made or noted from the assertion to that documentation. If it is not documented, the evaluation can be described in the assertion. Complex and multi-part evaluations can be broken down after breaking down the assertion into constituent parts.

UKLeaP product
In IMS LIP, the product element was strangely a sub-element in two places: activity and interest. The information model can be found at 13.9 in this table and the diagram is here The intention in UKLeaP was to separate out what effectively constitutes product metadata into a top-level element; but for various reasons this was not actually done.

The idea of a product element was either to describe a material artefact that had been created by the person, or to include an actual electronic artefact. In each case, the product was there because it was valued, and could potentially provide evidence about some ability of the person.

This approach has now become difficult to justify. Many electronic artefacts have their own metadata embedded, and are available through a URL. Even where the artefact is not in the public domain, or where IPR is significant, a URL can be used which authenticates the reader and verifies that the reader is allowed access.

In any case, the significance of an artefact is often not self-evident. Even if it is with as simple a statement as "this is what I have made", in general artefacts need to be introduced into claims in order for their significance as evidence to be apparent.

Thus, in LEAP 2.0, products would be introduced by, and linked from, claims.

PebblePad
''Here will follow a similar table for PebblePad. Other systems are also invited to submit material for inclusion here.''