Re: [TalentSignal] Better more flexible coding of Occupational Category

Phil, if the new definition includes the phrase "...with the property
repeated for each applicable value", then you should probably drop "or
categories" from the opening phrase since the resulting intention is for
the property to identify a single category.

In a separate post to this list, I raised a question about a meaningful
distinction (asking for one) between 'CategoryCode' and 'DefinedTerm'. It
appears to me that the example could be either depending on whether the
focus is on the 'name' or the 'codeValue' (I obviously need help).

On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 5:24 AM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:

> 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/" <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.
>