- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2019 17:18:50 +0100
- To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3d1b1bbc-75e7-597b-879a-f3f6784fba9b@pjjk.co.uk>
On 25/04/2019 16:46, Fritz Ray wrote:
> I have internal gripes that the examples aren't great linked data, but
> from a descriptive data standpoint, this looks good.
Fair point, and thanks.
>
> 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.
>
I don't know the details of O*Net linked data provision, AFAIK there
isn't any for the O*Net 2010 edition used in the original example. For
the 2019 update, is this better?
<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",
"dateUpdated": "2019",
"url":" <https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/>https://www.onetonline.org/" <https://www.bls.gov/soc/2018/>
},
"codeValue": "15-1211.00",
"name": "Computer Systems Analysts",
"url": "https://www.onetonline.org/link/summary/15-1121.00"
}
}
</script>
Still swithering between updated and published. That url from Fritz say
updated, so...
Is there are better URI for the term as linked data, that could be used
as @id?
Of course, if the linked data is fully working, there is no need to put
the information about the CategoryCodeSet as that could be fetched from
the URI. However, I think there is no harm in showing how to provide
that information in an example, and I think it would be necessary to
have something as a fallback for systems that don't fetch that data.
Phil
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:06 AM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk
> <mailto: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 <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.
>
--
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 Thursday, 25 April 2019 16:19:15 UTC