Re: Person job proposal (was Re: proposal: Financial information)

On 17 Sep 2014, at 19:19, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮ <> wrote:
en 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

This makes sense, but note a subtle issue:

gr:ProductOrService / schema:Product is not distinct from any other type, because you can offer to transfer rights on almost anything, including a corporation, a place, etc. In RDF worlds, this does not cause a problem, because of the semantics of domain and range axioms. If you use a foo:Restaurant in the position of a product in an offer, it is simply inferred that the restaurant is also a product (which is fine and intended in the GoodRelations notion of product being a role that a thing becomes by being the object of an offer).

In Microdata and the Google tooling worlds, and with the different semantics of schema:rangeIncludes, we must (!) extend the range of schema:itemOffered and schema:typeOfGood to include schema:Service and schema:Role.

Note that an schema:Offer or schema:Demand can be linked to a product etc. either via itemOffered (simple case of just one item) or via includesObject -> TypeAndQuantityNode (for more advanced cases - e.g. bundles or quantities other than one piece of the object).

Otherwise, the validators would reject the new markup.

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

See above. We must do that.

Can the one submitting the respective pull request please make sure that the additional rangeIncludes statements are added to chema:itemOffered and schema:typeOfGood?


>> On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 3:08 PM, ☮ elf Pavlik ☮
>> < <>>
>> 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 ?
>>    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]

Received on Thursday, 18 September 2014 08:15:24 UTC