[uf-new] hListing vs hJob

[Darren Bounds]

Hi Chuck,

Thanks for the insight. I'd love to see the drafts when they become available.

I'm curious, how do you envision describing common job posting
artifacts like 'full-time', 'part-time', 'contract' using hListing?


Darren

On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 8:42 PM, Chuck Allen <chucka at hr-xml.org> wrote:
> Darren Bounds wrote:
> > I represent Vurv and we definitely see value in defining a job
> > requisition standard which may or may not leverage existing
> > Microformats but could not be contained by hListing and hCard alone.
> >
> Darren,
>
> What you say is true, but I wonder if the reason it is true is that the requisition use case isn't necessarily equivalent to the hJob or hListing
> microformat use case. The latter is all about getting some semantics/structure in a browser so content can be indexed/mashed-up, etc. I think the
> requisition use case is a bit different.
>
> In connection with the on-going HR-XML 3.0 re-architecture, our recruiting work group did a bit of survey work and analysis of the "PositionOpening"
> XML instances that came in under our certification program. We found a tremendous variation in the fields used by implementers. This variation is by
> industry, occupation, level of job, custom in the particular country or region, etc. My point in mentioning this is that our recent research tends to
> mirror some of the wide variation documented in the job-listing wiki pages:
> http://microformats.org/wiki/job-listing-brainstorming
> http://microformats.org/wiki/job-listing-examples
>
> This recent review leads me to believe that the simpler hListing is likely a better path than the more richly descriptive hJob. If the Microformats
> community were to build out everything under the job-listing brainstorming page (something approaching what might be required in a requisition), you
> might be adding complexity and opportunities for variation without commensurate benefit. I think you'd have something closer to a "document format"
> than a "microformat".
>
> The HR-XML recruiting work group kicked off its latest round of work just recently. This is still on-going, but the workgroup's current direction also
> may be informative. They are looking at splitting the existing PositionOpening spec into two different documents. One would be greatly simplified and
> primarily intended to communicate a formatted representation of a position (even a Microformatted formatted representation) to an advertising venue or
> recruiting partner. This responds to one usage pattern we saw a lot of -- implementers using a thin bit of XML for the administrivia that trading
> partners need to know about one another and for a bit of classification of the position, but passing most of the real job content as HTML within a
> CDATA section. The other document they are considering is a structured PositionProfile. This would be designed for the back office
> computer-to-computer provisioning of one system by another with very structured, discretely fielded information describing the position.
>
> I hope some of the above makes sense. If there is interest, I can share drafts of some of the above as they become available.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Chuck Allen
> HR-XML Consortium, Inc.
>
> _______________________________________________
> microformats-new mailing list
> microformats-new at microformats.org
> http://microformats.org/mailman/listinfo/microformats-new
>



-- 

Thank you,
Darren Bounds