Re: [TalentSignal] proposal for Job Start Date

I think HR hiring managers appreciate the nuance between “negotiable” and “as soon as possible”, and would very much like to express this in a free-form text field when posting a job. It is not hard to find examples of job postings that would not be well-served under the current proposal.

>> - 14% have some variation of “As soon as possible” in the local language.
> We say to use jobImmediateStart for this


It is not the same. Again, it’s nuance. “Immediate” according to dictionaries mean “without delay or very soon", while “as soon as possible” is more vague. It invites questions like “… as possible for whom?” Other languages might have other words that suggest different things to local readers. There might not be a one to one relationship between “immediate” and any one word in a given language.

>> - 5% have only the name of a month or two consecutive months (“August/September”).
> ISO 8601 allows values like these, e.g. 2019-06 and 2019-08-01/2019-09-30

It does, but to a human reader in Norway “August/September” means something like “after the sommer holiday sometime, there’s no rush, but we need to fill this position before autumn really kicks in”.

If the job requires a specific start date it can be expressed with an ISO 8601 date. Software can trivially parse the string - if it’s a well-formed ISO 8601 string, the software can use this structured date, otherwise it is a string that humans (or more sophisticated algorithms, perhaps backed by machine learning) can read and understand.

I think Vicki Tardif said it best earlier in the thread:

> If we don't allow for Text, people will do it anyway with no guidance, particularly on the open web. As an example, there are many cases where properties expecting a Person instead get a string like "Jane Doe". It is up to the reader to determine whether this is useful or not and act accordingly. If schema.org <http://schema.org/> over prescribes behavior, folks will just go off and do their own thing.


I can testify that this is what people do in our system, even when steered towards providing a specific date or a value like “ASAP”.

Martin Solli
Developer & Co-Founder, Vilect
https://www.vilect.com/

> On 6 May 2019, at 14:22, Joseph D. Marsh <jmarsh@3storysoftware.com> wrote:
> 
> To my mind, “negotiable” and “as soon as possible” are similar enough that they shouldn’t need separate handling – both convey a similar message which (I think) is well-handled with the proposed “jobImmediateStart” attribute.
>  
> Thanks,
> - Joseph
>  
> From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk> 
> Sent: Monday, May 6, 2019 8:17 AM
> To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [TalentSignal] proposal for Job Start Date
> Welcome Martin, and thank you for the introduction and valuable contribution.
> 
> From your breakdown I think that the current proposal <https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Provide_start_date_for_job> covers all bar the "Negotiable" case (see below).
> 
> Options:
> 
> We could give guidance such as "leave blank for negotiable"  
> We could go back to soliciting text values
> We could do a bit of both -- i.e. "leave ISO Date blank for negotiable" and add Text as an expected value type
> other?
> Whatever put in the definitions we can clarify with examples.
> 
> Phil
> 
> On 06/05/2019 11:45, Martin Solli wrote:
> - 31% have the equivalent of “Negotiable” in the local language.
> Not covered
> 
> - 30% of jobs have an explicit date set.
> This we cover explicitly. 
> 
> - 20% have no value.
> There is always the option of not providing a value.
> 
> - 14% have some variation of “As soon as possible” in the local language.
> We say to use jobImmediateStart for this
> 
> - 5% have only the name of a month or two consecutive months (“August/September”).
> ISO 8601 allows values like these, e.g. 2019-06 and 2019-08-01/2019-09-30
> 
> -- 
> 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.
>