- From: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 13:12:06 -0400
- To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAMPdqZ0nR3pe6v-x8nu1gDgmj54OEBqvrwmz5k7K=BuuFqeNMQ@mail.gmail.com>
Thabnk you, Phil. This proposed solution seems to work well. I have no
real feel for modified vs. published. Maybe others do.
Merrilea
(tiny keyboard, pls excuse typos)
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 9:54 AM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:
> Merrilea raises an important point below.
>
> To correctly specify O'NET, you'd need to also specify the year of the
> O'NET revision you're talking about. It's not naturally part of the name,
> the way it is with ISCO. I don't really see a way to do this in the
> proposed solution (?). But maybe it's obvious and I missed it.
>
> There are two potential solutions.
>
> 1) add guidance saying that the year should be added to the name. An
> example might look like:
>
> "occupationalCategory": {
> "@type": "CategoryCode",
> "inCodeSet": "O*NET (2018)",
> "codeValue": "215",
> "name": "Electrotechnology engineers"
> }
>
> This would do for humans but text names are not great for machines (O'NET
> or O*NET..., and did you know that the US SIC is different to the UK SIC?),
> so maybe better:
>
> 2) use CategoryCodeSet <https://schema.org/CategoryCodeSet> as a property
> of inCodeSet, which has some useful properties. An example might look like
>
> "occupationalCategory": {
> "@type": "CategoryCode",
> "inCodeSet": {
> "@type": "CategoryCodeSet",
> "name": "O*Net",
> "datePublished": "2018",
> "dateModified": "2018",
> "url": "https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/" <https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/>
> },
> "codeValue": "215",
> "name": "Electrotechnology engineers"
> }
>
> (only one of datePublished and dateModified would be necessary, I'm not
> sure which. O*Net seems more like published, but I know coding schemes that
> seem to be continually modified rather than re-published as a whole, so
> that could be a more general pattern)
>
> Would that work?
> Phil
>
> -------- Forwarded Message --------
> Subject: Re: [TalentSignal] Better more flexible coding of Occupational
> Category
> Date: Wed, 24 Apr 2019 08:48:23 -0400
> From: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com> <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
> To: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
>
> Dear Phil,
>
> I'm replying to you instead of the group in case I just missed something.
> To correctly specify O'NET, you'd need to also specify the year of the
> O'NET revision you're talking about. It's not naturally part of the name,
> the way it is with ISCO. I don't really see a way to do this in the
> proposed solution (?). But maybe it's obvious and I missed it.
>
> Merrilea
>
>
>
> (tiny keyboard, pls excuse typos)
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019, 8:24 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.
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 24 April 2019 17:12:47 UTC