- From: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 15:47:29 +0200
- To: "martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org" <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- CC: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 09/17/2014 03:30 PM, martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org wrote: > 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?). why not Thing > Intangible > Occupation just like Role ? i would stay careful with subtypes of schema:Action, especially if they don't sound right with -Action sufix: OccupationAction, unless we talk here about OccupyAction :D > > 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 +1
Received on Wednesday, 17 September 2014 13:49:45 UTC