RE: [TalentSignal] proposal for Job Start Date

Agreed (I was definitely over-simplifying there!)

Thanks,
- Joseph

From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 9:57 AM
To: Joseph D. Marsh <jmarsh@3storysoftware.com>; Martin Solli <martin@vilect.com>
Cc: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Subject: Re: [TalentSignal] proposal for Job Start Date



On 07/05/2019 14:38, Joseph D. Marsh wrote:
I think the point of this exercise is to create/promote *some* structure, where there is none today.

As it stands, we’re going with “send whatever you want … we hope it’s a date(like) value … and if you are simply looking for someone to start as soon as possible, there’s a flag for that”.


I think it is a little more directive than that: more like "provide a date, if that's not sufficient use text (as well or instead), and if you are simply looking for someone to start as soon as possible, there’s a flag for that"

We can add example markup to show Date+Text

Phil
Thanks,
- Joseph

From: Martin Solli <martin@vilect.com><mailto:martin@vilect.com>
Sent: Tuesday, May 7, 2019 9:35 AM
To: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk><mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Cc: Joseph D. Marsh <jmarsh@3storysoftware.com><mailto:jmarsh@3storysoftware.com>; public-talent-signal@w3.org<mailto:public-talent-signal@w3.org>
Subject: Re: [TalentSignal] proposal for Job Start Date

Yes, allowing Text in addition to ISO 8601 Date should cover what we’re seeing in job postings in the wild.

I’m unsure about the usefulness of the “jobImmediateStart” field. It covers a use case like “I need a job right now, let’s see what’s available for me to start working immediately”, but is this use case so central and special that it justifies its own boolean field (with the problems they bring)? I don’t know. I guess people could just leave out the property in their job postings if they need more nuance.

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


On 7 May 2019, at 11:35, Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk<mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:
Thanks Martin,
All: any objection if we follow Martin and Vicki's advice and add Text back into the expected range for jobStartDate? It's largely an acknowledgement of what people will do anyway if they cannot express the information that they want as a date.
Martin, is this enough to address your concerns?

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 the jobImmediateStart property to indicate the position is to be filled as soon as possible.
Expected type: ISO 8601 Date<https://schema.org/Date> , Text<https://schema.org/Text>
jobImmediateStart
Defintion: An indicator as to whether a position is available for an immediate start.
Expected type: Boolean<https://schema.org/Boolean>
Some examples would be useful for clarifying / setting guidance for difficult cases. Let me know if you have any text that might be the basis for such examples.

Phil
On 07/05/2019 09:29, Martin Solli wrote:
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/


--
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.