- From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 6 May 2019 16:03:51 +0100
- To: Vicki Tardif <vtardif@google.com>
- Cc: public-talent-signal@w3.org
- Message-ID: <5a1cd15c-0ad1-9c5e-58de-60e550779030@pjjk.co.uk>
I know what you mean Vicki, and this has worried me too. I think that JobPostings are a little different to many other things that schema.org is used for in that there is often scope for some flexibility (more often than in the case of offering products for sale). So, to your points: On 06/05/2019 15:20, Vicki Tardif wrote: > In general, schema.org <http://schema.org> has stayed away from > boolean properties as they can't be expanded later (for example, "must > start immediately" vs "may start immediately"). The job is available to be filled immediately. I think the implications are that (a) the hiring organization would like someone to start as soon as possible; (b) anyone in need of a job to start now would consider this over a similar job with a start date in a couple of months. > And in an open world model, it is impossible to know what an unset > value means. In this case, it would leave readers to decipher what is > meant if the boolean is true and a future date is given. I think this is really an issue with the definition of jobStartDate: is this the date before which someone must start, or before which they may not start, or is it the precise date on which they must start. We could cover all these options by using iso date ranges, but I don't think there is much appetite for this. We could add Text back to the expected range, but we know we are likely to see text values anyway and the question is how much do we want to encourage them, and what I am hearing from the group so far is not to encourage them. If both a start date and immediate start are indicated I think we can safely infer that the job is available immediately and anyone taking the job must be able to start before the start date. Phil > > - Vicki > > On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 12:46 PM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk > <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote: > > Thanks Andrew. On Friday I drafted a very similar suggestion, but > didn't quite finish it. So, yes, I think that your proposal would > make sense. > > I think that it would discourage the use of free text as much as > we can, though we should acknowledge that whatever the spec says > we will still get values as free text. > > The only change I would make is to change the name of the > immediate start indicator to jobImmediateStart -- this gives a bit > more context for schema.org <http://schema.org>. > > Also I want to check on the exact wording though, at the moment > it's quite tight: start immediately or start on a specific date. > Isn't reality a bit more flexible than that? > > So I had drafted: > > *jobImmediateStart* > > *Defintion: *An indicator as to whether a position is available > for an immediate start. > > *Expected type:* Boolean <https://schema.org/Boolean> > > Phil > > On 04/05/2019 19:19, Andrew Cunsolo wrote: >> Hello, All >> This is an interesting discussion. >> >> I think for the majority of use cases, a single date or an >> indicator for immediate start should suffice. I don't like >> the option for local interpretation for a string, so I like the >> idea of an "immedidateStart" indicator which is more clear on >> interpretation. >> >> I would amend it to be something like the following: >> >> *jobStartDate* >> >> *Definition: *The date on which a successful applicant for >> this job would be expected to start work. Choose a specific >> date in the future, or use immediateStartIndicator property. >> >> *Expected type:* ISO 8601 Date <https://schema.org/Date> >> >> *immediateStartIndicator* >> >> *Definition: *Set this indicator if the successful applicant >> for this job would be expected to start immediately. Use >> jobStartDate if the start date for the successful applicant >> is at a specific future date. >> >> *Expected type:* Boolean >> >> >> @Phil you are more familiar with the best practices of schema.org >> <http://schema.org>, would the above make sense? >> >> Regards, >> Andrew. >> >> >> >> Andrew Cunsolo >> VP Product Development >> Talemetry Inc. >> +1 519-841-4334 >> Acunsolo@talemetry.com <mailto:Acunsolo@talemetry.com> >> >> >> >> On Friday, May 3, 2019, 2:28:57 p.m. EDT, Joseph D. Marsh >> <jmarsh@3storysoftware.com> <mailto:jmarsh@3storysoftware.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> Agreed. >> >> Thanks, >> >> - Joseph >> >> *From:*Merrilea Mayo <merrileamayo@gmail.com> >> <mailto:merrileamayo@gmail.com> >> *Sent:* Friday, May 3, 2019 2:23 PM >> *To:* public-talent-signal@w3.org >> <mailto:public-talent-signal@w3.org> >> *Subject:* Re: [TalentSignal] proposal for Job Start Date >> >> I've never seen it? Not common. >> >> Merrilea >> >> On 5/3/2019 1:06 PM, Phil Barker wrote: >> >> Just thinking some more about this: Is there any case for >> allowing a range of dates? Are there examples of job being >> advertised to start between "now and three weeks time" or >> "after 1 June but before 15 June"? >> >> Phil >> >> On 02/05/2019 16:02, Phil Barker wrote: >> >> Hello all, the second relatively simple issue that we >> prioritized, is that currently schema.org/JobPosting >> <http://schema.org/JobPosting> has no way to specify the >> expected start date for the job being advertised. >> >> A simple way to fix this >> <https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Provide_start_date_for_job> >> is a new property of JobPosting: >> >> *jobStartDate* >> >> *Definition: *The date on which a successful >> applicant for this job would be expected to start >> work. Text values such as "Immediately" or "As soon >> as possible" may be used when a specific date is not >> appropriate. >> >> *Expected type:* ISO 8601 Date >> <https://schema.org/Date> or Text >> <https://schema.org/Text> >> >> Please let me know if you wish to improve on this or have >> an alternative suggestion. In particular, is a text value >> to indicate an immediate start sufficient, or should this >> be handled more explicitly, for example as a separate >> property? >> >> On that question, my own view (as exemplified in the >> proposal) is that, while an explicit indicator for >> immediate start may be useful for internal systems, a >> text value is adequate for advertising this on the web. >> If experience and demand show that this approach is not >> adequate, we would have evidence to provide to schema.org >> <http://schema.org> for a separate, explicit property. >> >> Regards, Phil. >> >> -- >> >> 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. >> >> -- >> >> Merrilea J. Mayo, Ph.D. >> Mayo Enterprises, LLC >> 12101 Sheets Farm Rd. >> North Potomac, MD 20878 >> >> merrileamayo@gmail.com <mailto:merrileamayo@gmail.com> >> https://merrileamayo.com/ >> 240-304-0439 (cell) >> 301-977-2599 (landline) >> > -- > > 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, 6 May 2019 15:04:17 UTC