Writing effective competencies and benchmarks
| Competencies (understanding) | Benchmarks (doing) |
|---|---|
| Understands | Uses |
| Knows | Expresses |
| Recognizes | Demonstrates |
| Differentiates ... | Converts ... |
-
Begin each competency or benchmark with an action verb. Competencies start with verbs related to understanding. Benchmarks start with verbs about doing.
-
Limit each competency or benchmark to one sentence of circa 140 characters, the length of a Twitter posting. If a thought seems to require more words, consider splitting it into two simpler thoughts.
-
Spell out acronyms at least once. Use your judgement. In a competency index about Linked Data, frequently used acronyms such as OWL and URI need only be spelled out once: Knows Web Ontology Language, or OWL (2004), an RDF vocabulary of properties and classes that extend support for expressive data modeling and automated inferencing (reasoning).
-
Include historical context if possible. Linked Data technology has largely evolved over the past quarter century and continues to evolve. Knowing the year when a technology or concept was introduced helps readers, for example: World Wide Web (1989), HTTP (1991+), URIs (1994), OWL (2004), and Linked Data (2006).
-
Include enough detail to characterize the nature of competency in a domain. Competencies and benchmarks should not aim at covering all features of a technology, in the manner of a reference manual. Attempts at comprehensiveness risk making the CI brittle in the face of inevitable change, and they risk making the CI boring to read.
-
Draw attention to ambiguity in the definition or use of terminology. For example, one competency reads: Knows that the word "ontology" is ambiguous, referring to any RDF vocabulary, but more typically a set of OWL classes and properties designed to support inferencing in a specific domain.
-
Enlarge the set of topics covered by the index with prudence, bearing in mind that adding high-level topic cluster will broaden the scope of the index as a whole. If new high-level topic clusters are proposed, however, consider whether they really fit into the scope of this particular competency index or, perhaps, imply the need for a second competency index with a different scope (for example, one focused on the design of Knowledge Organization Systems).