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

Good point. With a bit more word-smithing:

> Category describing the job preferably using a term from 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, with the property repeated for each applicable value. 
> Ideally the taxonomy should be identified, and both the textual label 
> and formal code for the category should be provided.
>
> Note: for historical reasons any textual label and formal code 
> provided as a literal may be assumed to be from O*NET-SOC.

An example showing how the O*NET version can be provided:

<script type="application/ld+json">
{
   "@context":"http://schema.org/"  <http://schema.org/>,
   "@type": "JobPosting",
   "name": "Systems Research Engineer",
   "hiringOrganization": {
     "@type": "Organization",
     "name": "ACME Software"
   },
   "occupationalCategory": {
      "@type": "CategoryCode",
      "inCodeSet": {
           "@type": "CategoryCodeSet",
           "name": "O*Net-SOC",
           "datePublished": "2010",
           "url":"  <https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/>https://www.onetcenter.org/taxonomy.html"  <https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/>
        },
      "codeValue": "15-1211.00",
      "name": "Computer Systems Analysts"
   }
}
</script>

Any more comments?

Phil

On 24/04/2019 15:03, Stuart Sutton wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto: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.
>
-- 

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.