W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-vocabs@w3.org > April 2015

Re: Domain of schema:numberOfEmployees?

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@google.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 2015 12:14:19 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK-qy=6RUBbwBJ+GQf2b2+FgP2-hLO-5ERH+S-Q0gFRPG+wDrw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca>
Cc: W3C Web Schemas Task Force <public-vocabs@w3.org>
On 28 April 2015 at 10:41, Sarven Capadisli <info@csarven.ca> wrote:
> On 2015-04-28 11:02, Jindřich Mynarz wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> why is the domain of <http://schema.org/numberOfEmployees> set to
>> schema:BusinessAudience? Shouldn't it be schema:Organization instead?

Thanks both. This is worth addressing. I've filed an issue:
https://github.com/schemaorg/schemaorg/issues/456

There is a natural temptation to try to generalize this further, but
(as I've argued in the issue tracker) things get complex quickly.
Adding Organization as an appropriate type for numberOfEmployees is a
quick and simple improvement.

Incidentally it does also improve (very slightly) the possibility for
verifying certain kinds of information, or at least probing for
consistency. For example consider an Organization that has Ali, Bob
and Carla listed as 'employee'. If we also had numberOfEmployees: 3,
we would have some additional confidence that we have a complete
description of the organization's employees (at that time, at least),
whereas if we had been told numberOfEmployees: 2, we might instead
care to re-evaluate what exactly the data was telling us. Since
schema.org (and microdata/rdfa/json-ld) descriptions are always
partial accounts of a larger reality, having these simple count
properties can provide helpful checks.

Dan

>> Best,
>>
>> Jindřich
>>
>> --
>> Jindřich Mynarz
>> http://mynarz.net/#jindrich
>
>
> Beside the point that the rdfs:comment only emphasizing on "business",
> looking at all of the rdfs:subClassOf schema:Organizations, it appears to be
> that "number of employees" is suitable for all of them.
>
> I agree that domain schema:Organization seems more appropriate. Thinking
> ahead, are there organisations (currently undeclared) which do not have
> "employees"?
>
> -Sarven
> http://csarven.ca/#i
>
Received on Tuesday, 28 April 2015 11:14:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:49:40 UTC