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

Re: TalentSignal properties relating to employer information

From: Stuart Sutton <stuartasutton@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 7 Nov 2019 10:20:17 -0800
Message-ID: <CACetQ6HN2r1=yZ8rcbFNpsF_WdrhLL+X7ELCZj+OA6_h7fqH_g@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Joseph D. Marsh" <jmarsh@3storysoftware.com>
Cc: Phil Barker <phil.barker@pjjk.co.uk>, "public-talent-signal@w3.org" <public-talent-signal@w3.org>
Joseph, while many employers may not use a property that says "more" about
their company than what's necessary to apply, others will use it. In the
partner (employer) feedback during the JDX piloting, one important issue
for some was the ability to signal importance characteristics of their
companies that make them unique and signal key values and opportunities
that make them a desirable place to work and advance. An employerOverview
property would make it possible to signal such qualities.


On Tue, Nov 5, 2019 at 7:23 AM Joseph D. Marsh <jmarsh@3storysoftware.com>

>    1. +1
>    2. 0
>       - I’ve always been a fan of “lean” – adding a dedicated section for
>       this info seems … unnecessary
>    3. 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>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, November 5, 2019 7:22 AM
> *To:* 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 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.
Received on Thursday, 7 November 2019 18:20:44 UTC

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