You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Nice initiative. I am planning on using a variation of it in a project, namely with the additions mentioned below -- and noticed some additional verbosity in terms of fields may not hurt.
Suggestions are related to categorization/identification/non-ambiguous representation and visually defining fields.
this applies to basics and work entries
reasoning: label and position respectively are used as job title, thats fine but optional presence of following fields would be nice and may aid categorization, which may be necessary in high-volume contexts (such as HR/recruitment)
optional industry
optional industryField (that is, specialization)
optional -- as alternative or in addition to the above a keywords array, which is already present in other objects such as projects, skills, interests
this applies to skills entries
reasoning: when represented on a resume it is typical for there to be an indication to what degree the skill is mastered, currently level is being used as a textual explanation, thats fine as a descriptor but theres no convention around that, adding the following field would give a non-ambiguous value to be interpreted from 0-100
masteryPercentage or simply percentage
this applies to publications entries
reasoning: CMS systems typically allow for some form of categorization, google leverages labels/tags for appointing the publication to one or more subjects. As second argument, the fact that projects, skills and interests, has already adopted a keywords array
subjectand/orkeywords
this applies to following enumerable entries:
profile
work
volunteer
education
awards
certificates
skills
interests
projects
languages
and also to location
reasoning: schema objects used for visualization purposes, e.g. for resume generators, can be enriched through following addition. An optional image field is already present under basics, this optional field can be further adopted by a lot of the other objects and can contain imagery such as icons, pictures
optional image
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Hi,
Nice initiative. I am planning on using a variation of it in a project, namely with the additions mentioned below -- and noticed some additional verbosity in terms of fields may not hurt.
Suggestions are related to categorization/identification/non-ambiguous representation and visually defining fields.
this applies to basics and work entries
this applies to skills entries
this applies to publications entries
this applies to following enumerable entries:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: