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

Re: Person job proposal (was Re: Schema.org proposal: Financial information)

From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 19:19:30 +0200
Message-ID: <5419C2A2.1020309@wwelves.org>
To: Vicki Tardif Holland <vtardif@google.com>
CC: Martin Hepp <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>, "public-vocabs@w3.org" <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 09/17/2014 06:33 PM, Vicki Tardif Holland wrote:
> I propose 5 properties and the mailing list goes nuts! ;-)
> 
> I am starting to lose track of the discussion, which has forked between
> personal financial info and corporate information, so I am going to
> reply to the comments regarding Person here and start another thread for
> organizations.
> 
> As some have pointed out, Occupation and Job are slightly different. My
> occupation may be the same across employers, where as my job is not.
> 
> I like the idea of having a "EmployeeRole" to model salary, title,
> employer, and tenure. Authors would then use the worksFor property to
> link this information to a Person.
Thing > Intangible > Role > EmployeeRole
or even
Thing > Intangible > Role > OrganizationRole > EmployeeRole

sound goods to me!

as long as Martin confirms that below will still make sense
Offer --{itemOffered}--> EmployeeRole
Demand --{itemOffered}--> EmployeeRole

and maybe while on it, for schema:itemOffered we could extend
schema:rangeIncludes with Service and Role ?

:)


> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:08 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
> <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org <mailto:perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>>
> wrote:
> 
>     On 09/16/2014 08:04 PM, Vicki Tardif Holland wrote:
>     > Please see the attached proposal for describing financial information
>     > for individuals and organizations. I am aware that financial information
>     > can get very complex very fast. I am hoping to add the following properties:
>     [...]
>     > And extend the domain for:
>     > baseSalary
>     > salaryCurrency
> 
>     IMO those two properties pollute already bloated schema:Person
> 
>     how about reusing 'Qualified Relation' pattern[1] used for schema:Role ?
>     http://blog.schema.org/2014/06/introducing-role.html
> 
>     Person --{worksFor}--> Role --{worksFor}--> Organization
>                                 --{baseSalary}-->PriceSpecification
> 
> 
>     i see it much more realistic while more and more people work on various
>     projects (or have jobs) in parallel and modeling proposed in attached
>     pdf seems not accounting for it and assuming that person has only one
>     job or one 'main job'
> 
>     [1] http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/qualified-relation.html
> 
> 
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 17:21:47 UTC

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