(trying to find a neutral point to reply to) If it were me, I would probably keep JobInterview and make it a specialization of WorkEffort, much like Person and PartyGroup are to Party. While an interview certainly requires communication, I think in terms of the company being modeled it's better suited as a task than an HR employee needs to perform. WorkEffort could hold the generic task data and JobInterview holds the data specific to that type of task. Just my 2 cents.
Regards Scott On 27/07/2012, at 9:23 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: > 8. Could be related to an employment position > 9. Could be related to a requirement > 10. Could be related to an advertising campaign (which help wanted ad brings > in the most applicants?) > > The list could go on... > > -Adrian > > On 7/27/2012 10:19 AM, Pierre Smits wrote: >> For sure. These are all valid arguments for doing in-dept analysis on the >> effectiveness of the interviews (or surveys). >> >> Nonetheless, how the interview was/is conducted (by phone, online, >> face-to-face or otherwise) are of less importance to the why of the >> interview. Also the same applies to the items 1,2, and 6. >> >> More important are elements are, obviously, who is the party that is >> executing the interview, who is interviews, what is the underpinning >> subject, what are the questions, the types of the questions, and the >> response. Also, who may see the survey (is it confidential, etc), who may >> see the outcome to do statistical analysis, who may access individual >> responses, etc., >> >> But I am wondering where the intention to change this comes from. >> >> >> >> 2012/7/27 Jacques Le Roux <jacques.le.r...@les7arts.com> >> >>> Yes but Adrian has some points: >>> >>> >>> A job interview: >>>> 1. Has an estimated start time and end time >>>> 2. Has an actual start time and end time >>>> 3. Can be cancelled, postponed, or rescheduled >>>> 4. Includes a number of parties in various roles >>>> 5. includes a number of communication events >>>> 6. Has a location >>>> 7. Has a status (the outcome of the interview) >>>> >>> 1+2) Time, duration, (both estimated and actual) >>> 3) status >>> 6) location, >>> 7) result >>> >>> It's not as simple as a phone call (which could though have also the same >>> attributes, but will then be a conf call) or mail exchange (etc.) >>> >>> Disclaimer: did not had a chance to check the data model nor re-read the >>> book at this stage >>> >>> Jacques >>> >>> From: "Pierre Smits" <pierre.sm...@gmail.com> >>> >>> Adrian, Hans, >>>> Thinking a bit more about the jobinterview, I would say that it a specific >>>> type of survey (like a customer satisfaction survey or employee >>>> satisfaction survey). For that, some functionalities are already available >>>> in the Content application/solution. >>>> >>>> But a jobinterview involves a higher level of privacy and security. >>>> >>>> Nonetheless, an interview (or a survey) is exchanging communications >>>> between multiple parties. >>>> >>>> My 2 cents. >>>> >>>> 2012/7/27 Hans Bakker <mailingl...@antwebsystems.com**> >>>> >>>> Adrian, >>>>> Just telling me it should stay, is not enough, you have to provide >>>>> reasoning for that. >>>>> >>>>> my opinion is that a job interview is just a communication event of the >>>>> new type 'Jobinterview' with the roles already there. A job interview can >>>>> then already relate to other communication events of type email or >>>>> others..... >>>>> >>>>> Hans >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 07/27/2012 01:46 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I agree that employee leave belongs in the Work Effort entities. >>>>>> The JobInterview entity should stay, but its model needs to be fixed. >>>>>> There should be a JobInterviewRole entity that connects the JobInterview >>>>>> with Party, then the jobIntervieweePartyId and jobInterviewerPartyId >>>>>> fields >>>>>> can be removed. We can also add a JobInterviewComm entity that connects >>>>>> JobInterview to communication events. >>>>>> >>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>> >>>>>> On 7/27/2012 7:17 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Replacing them with the indicated entities...... >>>>>>> On 07/27/2012 12:27 PM, Adrian Crum wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't understand the question. Are you proposing removing those >>>>>>>> entities? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -Adrian >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 7/27/2012 4:42 AM, Hans Bakker wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> we intend to reduce the number of entities in HR: >>>>>>>>> EmplLeave >>>>>>>>> EmplLeaveReasonType >>>>>>>>> EmplLeaveType -> workeffort+related-entities so it also appears on >>>>>>>>> the calendar >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> JobInterview >>>>>>>>> JobInterviewType -> communication event and related entities >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> any comments or suggestions? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>> Hans >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >
