W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-talent-signal@w3.org > March 2019

Re: Getting started

From: Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Mar 2019 15:13:08 -0400
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Message-ID: <db4b9ed9-2ba9-b69f-7ba3-73aa4eb683c3@gmail.com>
Hi,

I've had a chance to look at the Google doc, and I have a few 
questions.  Just help me through my ignorance here...

1. On a webinar reviewing the JDX effort, one of the presenters (sorry, 
too new to recognize/remember voices) said that the current JobPosting 
schema didn't have a way to represent salary ranges.  I'm looking at 
https://schema.org/JobPosting and what I see is that MonetaryAmount has 
a maxValue and minValue associated with it.  So obviously, I didn't 
catch something correctly.  Or I don't understand something nuanced.  
Can someone clarify?

2. In Phil's notes on incorporating competencies into the JobPosting 
schema, I'm not seeing an accommodation for degrees of competency, or, 
as the Connecting Credentials Initiative would call it, "levels of 
mastery."  Just as a given major, like mechanical engineering, can have 
B.S., M.S., and Ph.D. levels, competencies also have levels indicating 
greater or lesser proficiency.  Connecting Credentials is currently 
hand-assigning mastery levels (from 1-4) to competencies as articulated 
in various competency frameworks and college curricula.  I can envision 
employers also wanting to specify a "level" of mastery for a given 
competency, and putting those in with job descriptions.  Do we have 
this?  Do we need this?

3.  Also in the discussion on integrating competencies into the 
JobPosting schema, I am not entirely sure what these two things really 
mean.  Could Phil give examples of what might go in each category, to 
help clarify?

  * means of representing nature of requirement of competency
  * means of representing assessments of competency

4.  Partly because I am not 100% sure what these things (above) mean, I 
am also not sure whether the proposed competency-related additions cover:

  * the evidence that the employer will accept (or that an individual
    can give as proof) of competency (e.g, link to online art portfolio,
    MSCA certification, digital badge in "responsibility," letter from a
    prior supervisor asserting this competency, link to a product
    database such as Portfolium, where instructors tag submitted student
    work with competency labels and store these competency "points" )
  * the individual, organization, or company validating/asserting this
    person has this competency (so,  self for the online art portfolio,
    Microsoft for the MCSA certification,  university course instructor
    for the badge, university course instructors for Portfolium,
    Division Director Bob Smith at Oracle for the employer letter)
  * the definition of the competency.  This might have to be either an
    English language description or a place where the English language
    definition is found.
  * the taxonomy to which the competency belongs:  if the competency is
    taken from a standard taxonomy, there should be a way to indicate
    this.  This becomes important because the same words, e.g.,
    "communication" come up over and over, yet they mean different
    things in different taxonomies.  One person's "communication" is
    oral; another person's version is written.

This is all that has occurred to me so far.

Merrilea

> Hello all and welcome to the W3C Talent Marketplace Signaling 
> Community Group.
>
> I would like to discuss how we start work on this topic. I think two 
> things might help
>
> 1, I have collated some ideas from the Job Data Exchange project on 
> areas that seemed to need attention. I have shared these as a Google 
> doc 
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SfB2d-CkxrbfOJJPcBjb_etGJJ0_Rk9ELpqsQx5QwKA/edit?usp=sharing> 
> My expectation is that it might be best to address some of the smaller 
> issues towards the end of the document while we think about the bigger 
> picture around the use cases listed first. Please share any comments 
> on what seems to you to be important and/or easily addressed.
>
> 2, I think it might help to have a conference call to discuss 
> priorities, working methods and communication channels. I would like 
> to get some idea of when people might be available for such a call. So 
> please indicate your availability using this poll offering some times 
> <https://doodle.com/poll/w4btksa9himsrrxv> that I hope will be 
> convenient across various timezones.
>
> Best regards, Phil
>
>
> [ideas] 
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SfB2d-CkxrbfOJJPcBjb_etGJJ0_Rk9ELpqsQx5QwKA/edit?usp=sharing
>
> [Kick call time poll] https://doodle.com/poll/w4btksa9himsrrxv
>
> --
> 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.
>
-- 

Merrilea J. Mayo, Ph.D.
Mayo Enterprises, LLC
12101 Sheets Farm Rd.
North Potomac, MD 20878

merrileamayo@gmail.com
https://merrileamayo.com/ < >
240-304-0439 (cell)
301-977-2599 (landline)
Received on Friday, 22 March 2019 19:14:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:33:33 UTC