- From: <martin.hepp@ebusiness-unibw.org>
- Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 16:04:01 +0200
- To: ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org>
- Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 17 Sep 2014, at 15:47, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <perpetual-tripper@wwelves.org> wrote: > 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 ? +1 > 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 Yes, I was looking for something like "Happening" in other top-level ontologies ;-) Action is a bit too specific as a superclass. The good thing is that JobPosition is already there, so we could try to enhance that in a mostly backwards-compatible way. While Occupation is clearer and my favority, JobPosition may be more intuitive for Web developers. Martin > >> >> 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 14:04:26 UTC