W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > September 2014

Re: Adding a Job and/or Profession type (was Schema.org proposal: Financial information)

From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:30:53 +0200
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
Message-Id: <39060FF5-656D-4F1C-AF51-DD1C10B59058@ebusiness-unibw.org>
To: Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com>
I would bundle all respective additions under a new type - e.g. schema:Occupation or schema:Job, likely as a subtype of schema:Action (or schema:Thing?).

Jobs are roles that individuals hold over certain periods of time. So let us not put job-related properties directly under schema:Person.

The terms and conditions and the compensation should be modeled via schema:Demand (for Job offers - someone seeking work to get done for money) and schema:Offer (for Job search / applications - someone offering labor for money) and its existing commercial properties.

So we would have

a) Job Search

schema:Person -> schema:makesOffer -> schema:Offer -> schema:itemOffered -> schema:Occupation

b) Job Offer

schema:Organization -> schema:seeks -> schema:Demand -> schema:itemOffered -> schema:Occupation

Instead of schema:itemOffered, schema:includesObject may be more appropriate, but adds one level of indirection.


martin hepp
e-business & web science research group
universitaet der bundeswehr muenchen

e-mail:  martin.hepp@unibw.de
phone:   +49-(0)89-6004-4217
fax:     +49-(0)89-6004-4620
www:     http://www.unibw.de/ebusiness/ (group)
         http://www.heppnetz.de/ (personal)
skype:   mfhepp 
twitter: mfhepp

Check out GoodRelations for E-Commerce on the Web of Linked Data!
* Project Main Page: http://purl.org/goodrelations/

On 16 Sep 2014, at 22:04, Jarno van Driel <jarnovandriel@gmail.com> wrote:

> During Vicki Tardif Holland's post about Financial information for Person and Organization (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-vocabs/2014Sep/0115.html) once again the subject of adding a Job and/or Profession type to schema.org has come to the table.
> Maybe therefore it's time to start thinking about this out loud. 
> A Job type would probably have a lot of properties in common with the already existing JobPosting, but which ones exactly will still have to be figured out.
> There are a couple of things I know people are looking for the Person type, which sort of overlap with this. For Person some would like to have:
> skill > Skill (eg. a list of Skills)
> qualification > Qualification (eg. a list of Qualification)
> as opposed to JobPosting's 'skills' and 'qualifications', which are plural forms with Text as their expected value.
> So the question here also is, should Person be expanded with:
> baseSalary, 
> salaryCurrency,
> skill > Skill or just skills
> qualifications > Qualification or just qualifications
> and any other property that seems to be fitting, looking at JobPosting.
> Or should we only focus on schema.org/Job/Profession for now and continue the discussion about Person after that?
> Anyways, any thoughts are appreciated, (I'm just trying to get the subject raised here).
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 13:31:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:29:44 UTC