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

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.