[Buildingdata] Re: [opendata] {Disarmed} Re: [opendata] Vacancies

[Christopher Gutteridge]

Alexander Dutton wrote:
>> Maybe should be: applicationClosingDate and perhaps
>> applicationOpeningDate and even
>> applicationInterviewNotificationByDate
>>     
>
> Yes, all makes sense (I think). The opening date is currently (well,
> should be) encoded as dcterms:created, as I don't think the vacancy
> opens any later than it's first published.
>   
Disagree. I may be over designing, but it strikes me that the record may 
be created, approved, then published. Or be created with a date for 
publication. Not a big concern, but careful phrasing would allow a wider 
scope of reuse.
>> and the other end with: postEarliestStartDate postLatestStartDate
>> and postDuration
>>     
>
> I don't think we have these available in any sane form, but yes,
> sensible things to define.
>
>   
>> also
>>
>> -- full time, part time, temp, intern, maternity/paternity cover
>> etc. -- fixed contract? -- salary, hourly pay -- benefit (eg.
>> health cover, holidays etc.) -- bonuses?
>>     
>
> Again, all good (if someone can come up with some sane model).
>   
For these it may make sense to note that they're explicitly *not* 
defined in this schema yet, and we're looking for usecases.
>> <j.2:online>True</j.2:online> eh? <j.2:open>True</j.2:open> eh?
>>     
>
> "whether it's advertised on the website" and "whether the closing date
> has passed". These (if we have them at all) should certainly be
> xsd:booleans. It's arguable that the open stuff is redundant (and
> potentially misleading) if we also have the actual closing date.
>   
I think you'd be better losing 'open' as it's much safer to look at 
dateranges, and surely 'online' is just the existance of a further 
Information predicate?


>> Also needs something about requirements.
>>     
>
> Yes. Not available to us unless we parse the Word document (*joy*).
>
>
> Also, kudos to MailScanner. I'll know to look out for your fraud
> attempts in future.
>   
Mailscanner is Free Open Source software written by a team mate of mine. 
I've forwarded the bug to him but it's a very unusual case so probably 
not worth fixing.
http://www.mailscanner.info/
He has a second tool, created to deal with the issue that mailscanner 
(and other mail filters) generally won't allow really big attachments:
http://www.zend.to/index.php


-- 
Christopher Gutteridge -- http://id.ecs.soton.ac.uk/person/1248

You should read the ECS Web Team blog: http://blogs.ecs.soton.ac.uk/webteam/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ecs.soton.ac.uk/pipermail/buildingdata/attachments/20110812/f7916b1a/attachment.html