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

RE: TalentSignal properties relating to employer information

From: Joseph D. Marsh <jmarsh@3storysoftware.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2019 16:39:57 +0000
To: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>, "public-talent-signal@w3.org" <public-talent-signal@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BL0PR06MB47855E0747600824463E690EE57E0@BL0PR06MB4785.namprd06.prod.outlook.com>
Phil,

Thanks for the clarification on #3: I change my vote to “+1” for that one.

Thanks,
- Joseph

From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 11:37 AM
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org
Subject: Re: TalentSignal properties relating to employer information

Thank you Joseph

On point 2 (and 1, for that matter): these are optional, maybe necessary for some people but not others. The only way to see whether it is completely unneccessary is to see whether anyone uses it. It's a property in JDX JobSchema+, and pilots of that with a few organizations did see it get used. That was admittedly a very limited trial, and may not be entirely representative of use in the wild, but it gives me some confidence that the property has some use. OTOH, lean is good; we don't need to propose it. What do others think?

To address you third point, what is being suggested is the change that is necessary to use industry codes with the existing industry property. Currently there is nothing stopping someone from saying

        "industry": "62012"

but it's unintelligible. The alternative

        "industry": "SIC: 62012,Business and domestic software development."

is seemingly intelligible to humans but harder for computers (and see below if you think you have understood correctly); but only the following is fully intelligible to humans and machines (or at least it would be if I could find a proper URI for the "@id"

        "industry": {

          "@type": "DefinedTerm",

          "@id": "http://example.org/UKSIC/2007/62012"<http://example.org/UKSIC/2007/62012>

          "code": "62012",

          "name": "Business and domestic software development"

          "inDefinedTermSet": {

             "@type": "DefinedTermSet"

             "name": "United Kingdom Standard Industrial Classification of Economic Activities"

          }

        }

(Note that the UK SIC has diverged from the SIC that was used in the US before NAICS)

On your other point, when do we say “what we have is good for now”: think that we are close, at least as far as simple properties of JobPosting go. Other issues are more complex, e.g. how to express alternative requirements, or how to handle Assessment of competences.

Phil
On 05/11/2019 15:23, Joseph D. Marsh wrote:

  1.  +1
  2.  0

     *   I’ve always been a fan of “lean” – adding a dedicated section for this info seems … unnecessary

  1.  0

     *   Given the above (“lean”), is there any reason why industry standard codes can’t be used in the existing industry property?

I was reading the notes for the latest release for a different standard and <understatement>it was *lengthy*</understatement>, which made it difficult to navigate (and, therefore, to use).

At what point do we say “what we have is good for now”, and stop twiddling the bits for a while?

Thanks,
- Joseph

From: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk><mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, November 5, 2019 7:22 AM
To: public-talent-signal@w3.org<mailto:public-talent-signal@w3.org>
Subject: TalentSignal properties relating to employer information

Hello all, I hope that we can discuss and suggest three properties loosely related to employer information as solutions to the following from our page of issues / requirements<https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Issues,_use_cases_and_requirements>:

1. There should be a means of providing contact details for a JobPosting. Arises from analysis of Junior software developer example posting<https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Examples:_Junior_software_developer>

I know this is maybe useful only in a minority of cases where jobs are maybe specialized, or non-standardized, but seems very common in some sectors, for example Higher Education or small companies, to have a "for further information please contact..." line in job adverts.

-- I propose we suggest a property applicationContact to JobPosting, with an expected value type of schema.org/ContactPoint<http://schema.org/ContactPoint> defintion: "contact details for further information relevant to this job posting"

2. provide Employer Overview "Description of the employer, career opportunities, and work environment" From Comparison of JDX JobSchema+<https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Comparison_of_JDX_JobSchema%2B_with_schema.org> with schema.org, see also issue 1829<https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/1829> point 5.

This is different to the general description that can be provided for a hiring organization in that it provides information relevant to filling a hiring requirement, for example advertising what a great place the organization is to work at, or signaling that legal requirements for hiring are being upheld.

-- I propose we suggest a property employerOverview (text) "description of the employer, career opportunities and work environment for this position"

3. Provide a means of giving the industry a standard code. From Comparison of JDX JobSchema+<https://www.w3.org/community/talent-signal/wiki/Comparison_of_JDX_JobSchema%2B_with_schema.org> with schema.org

Currently JobPosting has a property for industry<https://schema.org/industry>, (the industry associated with the job position) but this can only be text so codes like those in NAICS or ESCO would be difficult to interpret.

-- This is easily dealt with by allowing DefinedTerms to be used to specify industry.

Please respond. It's important we discuss anything that I propose that does not meet requirements, but it is also useful in demonstrating wider agreement if people who agree say so. A simple "+1" in response would be fine.

Thank you, Phil
--

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 Tuesday, 5 November 2019 16:40:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:33:37 UTC