Re: TalentSignal properties relating to employer information

Alex makes an important point about alignment with other data standards.

The terms I proposed are all similar or the same as terms in JDX 
JobSchema+. Industry code is handled slightly differently in JDX, with a 
separate term being added. As we have the option of modifying the 
existing term that doesn't seem necessary. applicationContact is not in 
the 'core' of JDX used in pilot testing, but it is in the full data model.

There is alignment between JDX and HROpen Standards. So while the data 
model for HROpen is more complex in order to allow use cases that 
require more expressive metadata, I believe there is reasonable 
alignment with it.  Perhaps Andrew Cunsolo or Jason Sole might be able 
to comment on any potential issues?

Is anyone aware of potential conflicts with other data standards?

Phil.


On 05/11/2019 14:45, Alex Jackl wrote:
> +1 on all of those Phil.  I am not  100% sure how those jibe with 
> other data standards  definitions so I would want to look at that but 
> this is a good, and practical, direction.
>
> ***
> Alexander Jackl
> CEO & President, Bardic Systems, Inc.
> alex@bardicsystems.com <mailto:alex@bardicsystems.com>
> M: 508.395.2836
> F: 617.812.6020
> http://bardicsystems.com <http://bardicsystems.com/>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:22 AM Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk 
> <mailto:phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>> wrote:
>
>     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 <http://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 <http://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.