Adding profession property to Person #807
10 participants
twamarc
changed the title from Adding profession predicate to Person to Adding profession property to Person 
Personally I think it's interesting to add a profession property to schema.org/Person although I have mixed feelings about introducing a schema.org/Profession type.
The reason why I like the idea of a (textual) property is because it helps folks express:
I am .... I do ... I work for ... A way of communicating info about yourself many folks do both on- and offline.
And usually people tend to describe their profession for the I do part (in combination with their jobTitle).
Now the good side of introducing a schema.org/Profession type would be that one can provide a referral to another vocabulary specifying more granular info but I'm not sure whether schema.org should provide an enumeration list for it.
Simply to prevent adding a new type like schema.org/Organizationthat potentially adds tons of new enumerations that will be nearly impossible to maintain.
So my question is: Are there any good vocabularies out there (or enumeration listings) that can be used for further disambiguation? (For going beyond a textual value for profession)
-1 for a Schema.org enumeration for profession types.
A profession property for Person could provide some utility - give it a range of Text & URL and things like https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q27349 could provide the flexible external enumeration capabilities we would be looking for.
Have a look at http://schema.org/JobPosting ... I'd rather we improve 'occupationalCategory' first or at least come up with something that works for describing job posters and job seekers...
In that case, would it be an idea if the domain of occupationalCategory is expanded to schema.org/Person, combined with providing some examples that contain references to O*NET-SOC (and/or ISCO, SOC, ESCO)?
While expanding its range to include url?
am afraid, occupationalCategory can hardly be used in place of profession. Eg. coding a site with demographic data where we have f eg. "Marc Profession Painter", to use <:Marc> <schema:occupationalCategory> <Painter> seems weird to me.
Hmm. @twamarc I think it actually makes a lot of sense.
One of the obvious reasons I can see this actually being used is for matching job seekers and job postings, as danbri suggested. So using the same property seems extra-helpful.
Are there other use cases that will get implemented?
Actual cases not yet @chaals, although that could be as simple as reaching out to the following examples (that @LeezaRodriguez found in minutes, giving the impression there are many more to be found):
- WebMD (web portal): http://doctor.webmd.com/doctor/ivan-borrello-md-c4bc9c82-90d7-45a0-bc0e-2f8aa610fbda-overview
- Cleveland Clinic ( well respected private teaching hospital): http://my.clevelandclinic.org/staff_directory/staff_display?doctorid=1767
- NYU Langone (well respected private teaching hospital): http://nyulangone.org/doctors/1679705230/joshua-s-silverman
All these sites currently (falsely) use schema.org/Physician to express 'professions' where they should have been expressing:
Person > occupationalCategory > SomeThing
I like the idea of adding occupationalCategory to schema.org/Person. I'd also love to see "skills" added to Person, since it's already a part of JobPosting as Dan mentioned. I could see multiple uses of the property for Person, and I think that occupationalCategory, profession, and skills each would have their own unique but important role within the Person type.
That could be done the same way for skills as I suggested for occupationalCategory, namely expanding its domain to schema.org/Person, while expanding its range to url. While this could also be done with qualifications.
If I got it right than https://ec.europa.eu/esco/portal/home offers URIs that could be used for all three (occupationalCategory, skills, qualifications).
Although if that is agreed upon, than it might be wise to rename skills and qualifications to their single form (skill and qualification).
+1 to the subject
I'm marking up the website of a psycho therapist and ran into a similar issue. She is specialized in eating disorders, obesity and psychological factors of gastric operations. But I don't see a way to express that in markup. Workarounds like alumniOf, award or affiliation don't apply either.
+1
I keep believe having this would help:
Person
> profession (new predicate in core)
I'm happy to have something along these lines and don't want to argue the naming too hard - but I really would like us to avoid having profession and Profession but meaning different things…
Decision: see http://www.w3.org/2015/11/06-schemed-minutes.html and #492
Summary:
1)Not move them from core to extension
2)Improvement in extension:
Organization
> MedicalOrganization
and
Organization
> LocalBusiness
> MedicalBusiness (new class in health extension)
> Dentist
> DiagnosticLab
> Hospital
> MedicalClinic
> Optician
> Pharmacy
> Physician
> VeterinaryCare
Person
> profession (new predicate in core)
> Profession (new class in core)
> MedicalSpecialty
> Cardiovascular
> Dentistry
> etc
The need comes from the effort in health extension to clean up MedicalOrganization |Organizations | LocalBusiness definitions.
see #806 and twamarc/ScheMed#14
The proposal there (taking suggestions from colleagues, thanks to @jvandriel) is to have:
and
We avoid creating
MedicalProfessionas it has the same semantics withMedicalSpeciality`Your input is welcome.
/cc @jvandriel @LeezaRodriguez @danbri @vholland @rvguha @RichardWallis