[TalentSignal] Better more flexible coding of Occupational Category

Hello all, there seems to be agreement (or at least a lack of dissent) 
that the two actions that I suggested we start with are appropriate. I 
suggest we tackle them individually, in turn, dealing with occupational 
category first and then job start dates.

The issue: Better more flexible coding of Occupational Category 
<https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Better_more_flexible_coding_of_Occupational_Category#Proposal> 
now has its own page on the wiki.

I have described the issue as: the property occupationalCategory 
definition requires O*Net-SOC taxonomy, which is too prescriptive & 
US-centric. See also issue 2192 
<https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/2192> and PR 2207 
<https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/pull/2207> which adds 
CategoryCode to range of occupationalCategory.

I have also proposed that to resolve this we:

  *

    Build on PR 2207 to use CategoryCode for occupationalCategory

  *

    Change definition to weaken mandate to use O*Net and to suggest
    alternatives.

  *

    Change definition with respect to handling of textual label, formal
    code and scheme

I think this is in accord with what Jason suggested 
<https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-talent-signal/2019Apr/0019.html>.

There is an additional complicating factor: JobPosting 
<https://schema.org/JobPosting> has both an occupationalCategory 
<https://schema.org/occupationalCategory> and relevantOccupation 
<https://schema.org/relevantOccupation> The latter can be used to point 
to an Occupation <https://schema.org/Occupation> which may have an 
occupationalCategory. So the category could be added to the JobPosting 
either directly or as part of more expressive information about the 
relevantOccupation. The example in PR 2207 (see below) takes the latter 
option. I have asked about this in a comment to that PR, but would be 
interested in any thoughts about it here.

I suggest the following as a *new definition for **occupationalCategory:*

> Category or categories describing the job. Use a taxonomy such as BLS 
> O*NET-SOC http://www.onetcenter.org/taxonomy.html , ISCO-08 
> https://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/isco/isco08/ or 
> similar. Ideally the taxonomy identifier, category textual label and 
> formal code should be provided, with the property repeated for each 
> applicable value.
>
> Note: for historical reasons any textual label and formal code 
> provided as a literal may be assumed to be from O*NET-SOC

*Please let me know of suggested changes or alternatives to these 
actions and definition.*

I have also included an example that is part of Richard Wallis's pull 
request.

> <script type="application/ld+json">
> {
>    "@context": "http://schema.org/",
>    "@type": "JobPosting",
>    "name": "Systems Research Engineer",
>    "hiringOrganization": {
>      "@type": "Organization",
>      "name": "ACME Software",
>    },
>    "relevantOccupation": {
>      "@type": "Occupation",
>      "name": "Research Engineer - Electronic, Electrical and Telecommunications Systems",
>      "occupationalCategory": {
>         "@type": "CategoryCode",
>         "inCodeSet": "ISCO-08",
>         "codeValue": "215",
>         "name": "Electrotechnology engineers"
>    }
> }
> </script>

Please let me know if you are happy with this.**We could, for example, 
add more information (e.g. the URL) about the CodeSet (ISCO-08) being used.

Best regards, Phil



-- 

Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. http://people.pjjk.net/phil
CETIS LLP <https://www.cetis.org.uk>: a cooperative consultancy for 
innovation in education technology.
PJJK Limited <https://www.pjjk.co.uk>: technology to enhance learning; 
information systems for education.

CETIS is a co-operative limited liability partnership, registered in 
England number OC399090
PJJK Limited is registered in Scotland as a private limited company, 
number SC569282.