Developing standards of professional activity with Semantic MediaWiki
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•1,205 views
The document discusses developing professional standards using a wiki-based solution. It outlines building standards by defining working functions that describe job tasks, skills, knowledge and qualities needed. People contribute by creating functions, voting, and evaluating them. The system structures functions into categories and qualification levels. It implements the standard structure and development process in Semantic MediaWiki, allowing voting, evaluation and exporting the final standard to Word. An initial pilot to develop a manager standard was partly accepted by the government.
Recommended
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Similar to Developing standards of professional activity with Semantic MediaWiki
Similar to Developing standards of professional activity with Semantic MediaWiki (20)
More from Yury Katkov
More from Yury Katkov (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Developing standards of professional activity with Semantic MediaWiki
- 2. Outline • What is the professional standard? • Create professional standards today: who and how • Our solution – Implementing the structure of standard in SMW – Tools for proposing and evaluating versions of standard parts – Generating the final document • Pilot 2
- 3. What’s the professional standard? • The standard describes the professional: – What he should do at job – What he should know about the world – What skills should he have – What personal qualities are required for his job • Standards are used for: – Designing the programs in universities – Designing the requirements for job candidates in companites 3
- 4. What’s the professional standard? • The standard describes the professional: – What he should do at job – What he should know about the world – What skills should he have – What personal qualities are required for his job • Standards are used for: – Designing the programs in universities – Designing the requirements for job candidates in companites 4
- 5. 5
- 6. 6
- 7. 7
- 8. 8
- 9. 9
- 10. 10
- 11. 11
- 12. 12
- 13. 13
- 14. 14
- 15. 15
- 16. 16
- 17. KNOWLEDGE 17
- 18. 18
- 19. 19
- 20. 20
- 21. 21
- 23. 23
- 24. 24
- 25. How we structure all that • Standard consists of many working functions • Working function consists of: – – – – Responsibility of the worker: type of task to perform Skills that the worker need to perform the task Knowledge needed for the task Professional qualities needed for the task • Working functions are grouped by: – Categories – Qualification levels 25
- 26. How we structure all that • Standard consists of many working functions • Working function consists of: – – – – Responsibility of the worker: type of task to perform Skills that the worker need to perform the task Knowledge needed for the task Professional qualities needed for the task • Working functions are grouped by: – Categories – Qualification levels 26
- 27. 27
- 28. How we structure all that • Standard consists of many working functions • Working function consists of: – – – – Responsibility of the worker: type of task to perform Skills that the worker need to perform the task Knowledge needed for the task Professional qualities needed for the task • Working functions are grouped by: – Categories – Qualification levels 28
- 29. 29
- 30. Working on the standard: actors • Fathers of the standard – Small group – Describes the levels, categories – Make decisions about which working functions will be included to the standard • Industry representatives • Moderators/Facilitators 30
- 31. Working on the standard: process Creating working functions Describing levels Describing categories 31 Syncronizing the levels Voting for working functions Proposing the new version of the standard
- 37. 37
- 38. 38
- 39. Voting • People can vote for or against the working functions • For now – only the simplest algorithm for average vote • Super users can freeze the voting or fix any result • All the results are semantified 39
- 40. Voting 40
- 41. Voting • People can vote for or against the working functions • For now – only the simplest algorithm for average vote • Super users can freeze the voting or fix any result • All the results are semantified 41
- 42. Voting 42
- 43. Why not prefer The Wiki Way? • People are hesitant to make changes in each other’s content • Edit wars are hard to understand • Most of the edits change the meaning of the content • People are busy and prefer voting to writing 43
- 44. Evaluting the articles • Participant can evaluate the working functions by several criteria • First we’ve used ArticleFeedback extension • Now we’re using our own extension: – Any number of evaluation criteria – Different criteria for different categories – Various widgets for submitting the evaluation 44
- 45. Evaluting the articles • Participant can evaluate the working functions by several criteria • First we’ve used ArticleFeedback extension • Now we’re using our own extension: – Any number of evaluation criteria – Different criteria for different categories – Various widgets for submitting the evaluation 45
- 47. Evaluting the articles • Participant can evaluate the working functions by several criteria • First we’ve used ArticleFeedback extension • Now we’re using our own extension: – Any number of evaluation criteria – Different criteria for different categories – Various widgets for submitting the evaluation 47
- 49. Export to MS Word • Component for export the standard to Word – To show the results to the government • Extensively uses SMW queries in the code • Generating MS Word is still a horrible task – Hack: create your document template in MS Word, convert it to html, fill it and rename it to doc 49
- 50. Export to MS Word 50
- 51. Export to MS Word • Component for export the standard to Word – To show the results to the government • Extensively uses SMW queries in the code • Generating MS Word is still a horrible task – Hack: create your document template in MS Word, convert it to html, fill it and rename it to doc 51
- 52. Results and perspectives • Pilot: standard for the manager is partly accepted by the government • SMW was good for quickly prototyping the system • We’ll continue to use SMW as the platform for designing the standards: – Creating reusable libraby of skills and responcibilities – Define relationships between standards 52
- 53. Some other stuff we have • More projects on strategic foresight and future studies • Storytelling in wiki! • Some new result formats: – Chap-timeline – Xtags • More of Semantic Glossary • New input tools: – Hierarchies – Preview input 53