Talk:Q28640

Please see Wikidata:Occupations and professions task force -

Profession vs. job vs. occupation

• A job is an occupation (Q13516667) for which a salary is received
• A profession (Q28640) is a lifelong technical expertise that you exploit as part of your paid job activity (Q192581)

LaddΩ chat ;) 13:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Tie to field

Is there a way to tie this to the field they practice? I.E. a sculptor practices sculpture. A computer scientist practices computer science. Etc. Superm401 (talk) 04:44, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

It's quite possible. One can propose a new property for this. Infovarius (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed at Wikidata:Property_proposal/Term#Field_of_profession. Superm401 (talk) 00:59, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Created as P:P425 (field of profession). Superm401 - Talk 19:53, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Instance or subclass

Is a given profession, such as lawyer, an instance of or subclass of or profession? That example has 'instance of', but astronomer has subclass. I think instance is correct, because lawyer is a profession. Subclass says "all of these items are instances of those items; this item is a class of that item", and all astronomers are not also professions. "Salaried profession" and "hourly wage profession" would be hypothetical examples of subclasses of profession if I understand correctly.

Also e.g. 'bankruptcy lawyer' should be a subclass of lawyer, since all bankruptcy lawyers are lawyers. Superm401 (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Laywer "instance of" profession, astronomer "subclass of" physicist. Infovarius (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

I disagree: a chain of subclass of and instance of links should always have this structure:

A instance of B subclass of C subclass of D ... subclass of Z

and never this one:

A subclass of B instance of C ...

because A instance of X implies that A is a token.

All professions are types, and not tokens, as they can be refined later by a more precise professions with a sublass of link.

--Gloumouth1 (talk) 08:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Logically second case is possible. Admit: $\{a\}\subset \{a,b\}\in \{\{c\},d,\{a,b\},e\}$. Infovarius (talk) 18:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

The 'instance of' and 'subclass of' properties are ontological membership properties, which are not identical to set theory membership properties. In other words, while P31 and P279 are similar to 'element of' ($\in$) and 'subset of' ($\subset$), they are not directly equivalent with those set theory relationships. An instance is a token and a class is type. For P31, the domain is 'instance' (token) and the range is 'class' (type). The domain of P31 does not include classes. In set theory, the domain of 'element of' can be either a set or some other mathematical object, like an integer. If we assume that classes are sets and instances are non-set elements, then the mismatch between P31 and $\in$ is clear. Emw (talk) 19:23, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

• Professions are classes, not instances. Occupations are also classes, not instances. (A profession is a subclass of occupation.) Professions and occupations are abstract objects and those don't have instances, just finer-grained classes. Individual people can be classified by their occupation, but they are not instances of their occupation; they are instances of practitioner, where "practitioner" (perhaps there's a better label) is a class of person that is defined by what occupation they have. For example, boxing is an occupation; boxing is a subclass of occupation. Boxer is not a subclass of boxing; it is a subclass of person that has an occupation of boxing. An individual person, like Muhammad Ali, is an instance of boxer. Emw (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I disagree. First of all, boxer is an occupation, not boxing (which is a sport). Second, boxer is an instance of an occupation, not a subclass. In other words, it is an example of an occupation, not a category of occupations. Profession, however, is a subclass of occupation. In other words, it is a category of occupations, not an example of an occupation. To organize it as you suggest is a contortion of the language and will never be intuitive to other users. Kaldari (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Educational training

Is the consensus really to restrict this to professions with "founded upon specialized educational training". If so, we will need a separate one for professions without such training, but I'm not sure that's a good idea (e.g. different jurisdictions may require different, or no, training for the same job). Superm401 (talk) 01:00, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

This item's corresponding Wikipedia article, profession, says that "A profession is a vocation founded upon specialized educational training." So by my simple reading "professions without such training" would actually not be professions. I think the best place to have this kind of discussion about an items' definition be on the Wikipedia talk page for the article.

Interestingly, the Wikipedia entry on occupation is a disambiguation page with no direct subject for the widely applicable property that folks seem to be discussing here (i.e. a property that can be used to classify people by what they do). Given that 'occupation' isn't an option, career or vocation seem like better options than 'profession' for that kind of property. Emw (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Restricted professions

Some professions, in some countries, are restricted, and bound to a diploma, a training or a test. Could a parameter reflect that ? Teolemon

For those interested by jobs & professions…

Head to Wikidata:Occupations_and_professions_task_force

DDC NONE

{{maintenance|SUBJECT=Q28640|DDC=|DDCMAIN=|TREEVIA=279|TANDEM=Q28640|TANDEMTREEVIA=31|SHOWALL=y|SILENT=|WMFLCODE=eo}}
{{maintenance|SUBJECT=Q28640|DDC=|DDCMAIN=|TREEVIA=279|TANDEM=Q28640|TANDEMTREEVIA=31|SHOWALL=y|SILENT=|WMFLCODE=eo}}

Polish linking

More appropriate linking:
w:pl:Zawód = Q12737077
w:pl:Profesja (zawód) = Q28640

Fix it, please. 2A01:11BF:610:8B00:FD9C:2F70:4864:80B5 18:04, 16 June 2019 (UTC) FIX ITT!!!!!