Is there already an ActivityPub vocabulary for job openings, or cvs?
General Discussion
15
Posts
3
Posters
57
Views
-
Yes, as a starting point, that's what I thought as well. Just if there already would have been sinething, I wouldn't try and reinvent the wheel.
One issue with blindly adopting #h-resume is, that in an #ActivityPub context, you usually don't just state "here is my resume", but also e.g. "I have a new job", which then is an update to your resume. A use case, that never existed for h-resume.
So there's still work to do. But it's definitively a good start.
Regarding:
"but also e.g. "I have a new job""You could either do that with a custom Object type.
Or, using an existing Object type — such as Note, or one of the others.
-
Regarding:
"but also e.g. "I have a new job""You could either do that with a custom Object type.
Or, using an existing Object type — such as Note, or one of the others.
Are you thinking of coding something for this?
-
Are you thinking of coding something for this?
I'm still in the phase of finding out, if there might already be all the tools available, but it seems, I won't get around writing at least some code for it.
I'll probably start extending an existing AP implementation, or using a library, instead of writing everything from scratch. But nothing is set in stone yet. Do you have any suggestions?
-
I'm still in the phase of finding out, if there might already be all the tools available, but it seems, I won't get around writing at least some code for it.
I'll probably start extending an existing AP implementation, or using a library, instead of writing everything from scratch. But nothing is set in stone yet. Do you have any suggestions?
@cdonat @reiver my main concern with such a system is it encourages the centralisation and the "big instance" problem, because of the nature of job ads and CV/resume posters. If you're looking for a job, you want your CV federated to as many potential employers as possible, and if you're hiring, you want your job as to be seen as much. I love the idea but without a good relay network it would be difficult to make it cohesive.
-
@cdonat @reiver my main concern with such a system is it encourages the centralisation and the "big instance" problem, because of the nature of job ads and CV/resume posters. If you're looking for a job, you want your CV federated to as many potential employers as possible, and if you're hiring, you want your job as to be seen as much. I love the idea but without a good relay network it would be difficult to make it cohesive.
I get your concerns. As @reiver already pointed out, the issue could be solved by federated search engines. They can also have federated indices.
Please allow me to respond with a longer thread, to describe my vision. It might change, over time, of course.
1/n
-
Let's assume I set up a search engine, that uses a hand full of sources known to me, that indexes software developer positions in Switzerland, because that covers broadly, what I'm interested in.
Other search engines as well as AP-Users can then subscribe to a query at my search engine. Whenever my crawler finishes, it publishes the newly found jobs, that match their queries.
2/n
-
Let's assume I set up a search engine, that uses a hand full of sources known to me, that indexes software developer positions in Switzerland, because that covers broadly, what I'm interested in.
Other search engines as well as AP-Users can then subscribe to a query at my search engine. Whenever my crawler finishes, it publishes the newly found jobs, that match their queries.
2/n
Now the other search engines have a new source. I can also subscribe to their search engines with my search term, and so find job openings, that I wasn't aware of before, because they have other sources.
After I add a job opening from those other search engines to my index, I also match it to my subscribers queries, and push it to them. Since I don't forward jobs, that I already have in my index, this breaks possible loops.
3/n
-
Now the other search engines have a new source. I can also subscribe to their search engines with my search term, and so find job openings, that I wasn't aware of before, because they have other sources.
After I add a job opening from those other search engines to my index, I also match it to my subscribers queries, and push it to them. Since I don't forward jobs, that I already have in my index, this breaks possible loops.
3/n
In the opposite direction, a search engine for recruiters can work similarly. They query known instances for resumes, that match their broad query and then use AP to distribute their results. The federated results can be used by the search engine admin to extend the list of known instances.
4/n
-
In the opposite direction, a search engine for recruiters can work similarly. They query known instances for resumes, that match their broad query and then use AP to distribute their results. The federated results can be used by the search engine admin to extend the list of known instances.
4/n
As job seeker, I subscribe to query, that describes the jobs, I'm interested in, and find job openings in my feed.
As recruiter, I subscribe to a query, that describes the candidates for my job openings, and will find matching candidates in my feed.
5/5
-
@cdonat @reiver I like the idea in principal, do you see those secondary subscribe actions as manual or automatic? I can see pros and cons to both but I feel automatic is the way forward for adoption, perhaps with an option to queue like moderation tools would have for those who don't want it? I'm getting into details here but I feel like a recommendation in the protocol/design doc would be worthwhile. How about multiple CVs for the same person? I have alt. ones for types of jobs for instance.
-
@cdonat @reiver I like the idea in principal, do you see those secondary subscribe actions as manual or automatic? I can see pros and cons to both but I feel automatic is the way forward for adoption, perhaps with an option to queue like moderation tools would have for those who don't want it? I'm getting into details here but I feel like a recommendation in the protocol/design doc would be worthwhile. How about multiple CVs for the same person? I have alt. ones for types of jobs for instance.
The idea currently isn't in the state, that I started thinking of that. 🙂 It's good to discuss all these details, I haven't thought about yet. Thank you for that.
Automatic subscription: I think, we have to distinguish between user, and search engine. The search engines will probably want to add new subscriptions automatically. The user probably wants to only subscribe to his chosen search engine.
-
@cdonat @reiver I like the idea in principal, do you see those secondary subscribe actions as manual or automatic? I can see pros and cons to both but I feel automatic is the way forward for adoption, perhaps with an option to queue like moderation tools would have for those who don't want it? I'm getting into details here but I feel like a recommendation in the protocol/design doc would be worthwhile. How about multiple CVs for the same person? I have alt. ones for types of jobs for instance.
Gli ultimi otto messaggi ricevuti dalla Federazione
-
@eyeinthesky @evan @trwnh the charter has the correct scope. I believe Evan was responding to discussion about the Fediverse and trying to point out the venn diagram overlap of Fediverse and WG charter. As such, indieweb stuff didn't factor in to that conversation. Or at least that was my read -- I raised an eyebrow when I read the email too!
-
@trwnh @evan @darius So maybe the narrow WG focus is aspirational (or participant-specific) rather than official. I've read that Indieweb leaders like Tantek will be involved so that sounds like there's interest from them too. Maybe there will be somewhat independent subgroups working on different subsets of specs?
-
@eyeinthesky @evan @darius a lot of this is probably in https://github.com/swicg/meetings but you'll have to find it first -- it's not in one piece
-
@eyeinthesky @evan @darius i believe the rechartering process led up to people landing on more or less the following:
- the primary reason for rechartering is that AP people want to work on updating AP/AS2
- however, there are other specs which also need updates, but don't want to recharter separately
- the w3c liaisons advised making the charter broader rather than narrower, to avoid potentially needing to amend the charter
- the work will be driven primarily by availability of editorsiirc?
-
On the W3C SocialCG mailing list, I saw that @evan wrote "The WG ... is focused on a narrow core: Activity Streams and ActivityPub." The WG charter describes a much broader scope. What am I missing?
-
The new W3C #ActivityPub Working Group is not that. Or not just that. It's a "Social Web" Working Group and includes maintenance of ActivityPub, WebSub, Activity Streams, Activity Vocabulary, MicroPub, Linked Data Notifications, Webmention, and LOLA specifications. Maintaining all these disparate specs in one WG seems like it will lead to similar results as the first time this was tried (not great). What's that saying about doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting different results? 🙃
-
@bengo i'm genuinely curious to hear your thoughts on this matter, because it seems to me like activitypub and fedi were never really on the same page, and the w3c spec diverged from the mastodon network almost before it was ever published. is there a path to fixing this within w3c cg/wg structure? what does that look like? are there any other paths?
-
> It's a bad and unfair idea [to make class 3 and 4 changes] [...] Totally respect your position if you disagree
i'm not super familiar with the w3c process but from a pragmatic standpoint what do you do when userspace is already broken and nothing is class conformant?
activitystreams was intended to describe streams of activities, and activitypub was intended for publishing activities to those streams of activities. no one in fedi does this. they syndicate posts and discard activities
