- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2019 12:52:18 +0100
- To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
- Message-ID: <907df4e0-dbb7-0934-c3c7-d3bdd75a0da2@pjjk.co.uk>
Hello all, and thank you for your comments on this issue. I have just suggested that an existing pull request <https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/pull/2207> on schema.org's github be amended to include the definition and example that arose from this discussion. We have a wiki page <https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/index.php?title=Better_more_flexible_coding_of_Occupational_Category&action=edit> for this issue to which we can add more discussion and examples if we wish. The last thing to mention on this subject is that it surfaced a further issue around JobPosting <https://schema.org/JobPosting> having a property for occupationalCategory and one for relevantOccupation which can also be used to specify the occupationalCategory. I've added this to our issue list <https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Issues,_use_cases_and_requirements#Issues> so we can consider discussing it in the future. Phil On 24/04/2019 13:23, Phil Barker 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/", >> "@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.
Received on Monday, 29 April 2019 11:52:43 UTC