- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2019 12:50:48 +0100
- To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
- Message-ID: <28ea1149-677b-2305-d7f6-cfcb969e9010@pjjk.co.uk>
On 11/06/2019 15:28, Stuart Sutton wrote: > As Phil notes, slicing and dicing education, experience, and > qualification (credential) into discrete buckets runs counter to how > these attributes are frequently stated in actual postings as boolean > expressions. It's made even more complex when we consider that > education, experience, and qualification (credential) are frequently > modified with concepts like required, preferred, equivalent and minimum. > > Bottom line for me is whether this level of complexity has a place in > markup for discovery. I completely understand, per Merrilea’s > comments, the use of schema.org <http://schema.org> properties in > applications development (some of us are doing that in JDX), but > really question its value to markup. Yes. We should always remember that detailed schema (e.g. HROpen, JDX) already exist for the representation of job data within organizations and can be used to transfer this data where high fidelity copying is important. Currently the aim is to help with expressing similar data in schema.org for the sort of purposes to which schema.org addresses. That's largely search (plus occasional use as a base schema for things like JDX). > So, is the way around this to ALSO have some property that captures > the qualifications narrative summary -- "4 year degree and six years > of experience or a Ph.D. and a current cybersecurity certification" in > addition to the discrete buckets? > I think that would be a way forward. The current properties in schema.org that have Text as an expected value my be useful for this. The issue, I think, is in working out whether we can use schema.org:educationRequirements or schema.org:experienceRequirements when the requirement expressed is a mixture of the education and experience. Phil > On Tue, Jun 11, 2019 at 5:01 AM Joseph D. Marsh > <jmarsh@3storysoftware.com <mailto:jmarsh@3storysoftware.com>> wrote: > > Indeed – Merrilea’s comments helped a lot (thanks Merrilea!) > > Thanks, > > - Joseph > > *From:*Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk > <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> > *Sent:* Tuesday, June 11, 2019 6:04 AM > *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org <mailto:public-talent-signal@w3.org> > *Subject:* Re: [TalentSignal] analysis of example Job Posting > > Hello Joseph, > > The two issues you mention are somewhat linked. You may have seen > Merrilea's comments about combining requirements. It's difficult > to summarise without going deep into the examples, but as she says > it comes down to encoding requirements like "1) a 4 year degree > AND six years of experience; OR 2) a Ph.D. AND a current > cybersecurity certification". Likewise a job may be available > "part time" OR "full time" > > Both probably merit their own discussion thread. > > Phil > > On 10/06/2019 18:58, Joseph D. Marsh wrote: > > Phil, > > I can’t speak to the first two items, but the latter two seem > like they need discussion. > > 1. This may be a rookie question, but be patient with me: not > sure what the issue would be for “combining requirements” > – isn’t this simply a node which already allows for “1 … > n” entries? > > 2. In my experience, there are many situations where a job > posting may offer different opportunities for work; the > job may allow the possibility of working part-time or > full-time, each of which would come with different own pay > > 1. Hourly for part-time vs. salaried for full-time > 2. “Part-time” may be defined as hourly for less than “n” > hours; full-time if more than “n” hours > 3. Benefits may differ for part-time work vs. full-time > > Given the current job market, I see a lot of companies who are > willing to split one full-time job into 2 part-time jobs, if > they can’t find one candidate to fill the position. > > Make sense? > > Thanks, > > - Joseph > > *From:*Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> > <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> > *Sent:* Monday, June 10, 2019 12:07 PM > *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org > <mailto:public-talent-signal@w3.org> > *Subject:* [TalentSignal] analysis of example Job Posting > > Hello all, a couple of weeks ago I shared a fictional example > job posting > <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vD19BSnaxkf9qahYeGBw19YKPFi2McFEuJOE9a5K_KY/edit> > [1] that originated from the job data exchange project. > > I have analysed this against schema.org JobPosting > <https://schema.org/JobPosting> [2] and the Google JobPosting > Search guidance > <https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/job-posting> > [3], producing an example of a full JobPosting and some > potential issues arising. > > The issues are: > > * There should be a means of providing contact details for a > JobPosting > * There should be a means of providing information about the > department within a hiring organization within which a job > in a job posting is situated. > * There should be a means of combining requirements for a > job posting > * employmentType covers different categories of information > which leads to some complications when more than one is > present. > > You can see the full analysis on the TalentSignal wiki > <https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Examples:_Junior_software_developer> > [4] > > Do you think that these are significant issues worth addressing? > > Regards, Phil > > 1. > https://docs.google.com/document/d/1vD19BSnaxkf9qahYeGBw19YKPFi2McFEuJOE9a5K_KY/edit > 2. https://schema.org/JobPosting > 3. > https://developers.google.com/search/docs/data-types/job-posting > 4. > https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Examples:_Junior_software_developer > > > -- > > Phil Barker <http://people.pjjk.net/phil>. > 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 <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 Wednesday, 12 June 2019 11:51:12 UTC