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

I have internal gripes that the examples aren't great linked data, but from
a descriptive data standpoint, this looks good.

The ideal case would be that the occupationalCategory links to the Computer
System Analysts webpage
<https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1121.00> that
is either Schema.org data or Schema enriched HTML -- and self-describes in
a consistent fashion. I don't see any problems with that use case either.



On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:06 AM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> wrote:

> 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>
> 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.
>