Wikidata talk:WikiProject Occupations and professions

Remark on the use of "instance" and "subclass"

As discussed in Talk:Q28640#Instance_or_subclass, many items describing jobs/occupations contain instance of (P31) profession (Q28640) but this is incorrect and must be changed tosubclass of (P279) profession (Q28640). Michiel1972 (talk) 15:39, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Is that something a bot could clean up ?--Teolemon (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

There is no consensus at that discussion that 'instance of' is incorrect. In fact, 'instance of' seems to currently be winning the debate 3 to 2. Kaldari (talk) 01:02, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

New properties created

Here are the four new properties requested by this task force. Please, help to fill out the discussion pages and to list them on wd:p. Consider to create a navigation table like {{Authority control properties}} for occupation codes. New properties:

• KldB-2010 occupation code (P1021)
• CNO-11 occupation code (P1022)
• SBC-2010 occupation code (P1023)
• SBFI occupation code (P1024)

--Micru (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I just dit what you told me, but the wd:p, since I'm not sure where to put them.--Teolemon (talk) 16:46, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I think they could belong into Wikidata:List_of_properties/Terms. Just make a new section for "Occupations and professions" and put all related properties there. You could also place a link to this task force, so when users see the properties they know where to come to discuss the subject.--Micru (talk) 18:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Done, but Wikidata:List_of_properties/Terms seems to have big performance issues. I'd also need the help of a botmaster to expand this beyond just properties. To this effect, I've completely revamped our pages to make the work that needs to be done more evident. --Teolemon (talk) 19:12, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Should all occupations be separate items from their skills?

Please join the discussion at Project Chat. Thanks! Kaldari (talk) 01:05, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania 2016

Only this week left for comments: Wikidata:Wikimania 2016 (Thank you for translating this message). --Tobias1984 (talk) 11:55, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

economist (Q1227195)

Is economist (Q1227195) really a profession, as it is stated now? Thanks! Syced (talk) 09:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Template with generic queries for professions

I've developed {{Generic queries for occupations}} which provides useful queries based on occupation (P106). The template is included in {{Item documentation}}.

Comments and feedback are welcome. PAC2 (talk) 20:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikicon NA Unconference session

Please join us for an Unconference session at Wikicon North America on inconsistent data modeling in the representation of museum directors as an occupation/profession. Friday, October 8th at 3:25pm Eastern Time (US) -- 19:25 UTC. Notes from a previous session and slides on the topic at the last Wikidata Data Quality Days. Our team is new to this area so any advice about how to join the discussion in this Project is welcome! We're looking for input from the community on the best way to represent this topic in Wikidata given the current extreme lack of consensus and consistency.--WatsonAmy (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I've been frustrated at the same lack of consistency that you pointed to in your presentation at the Data Quality Days. I'm curious if the discussion is ongoing, and if so, where it is taking place? I'd like to help with getting this situation sorted out. Popperipopp (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are occupation labels always male form?

I've launched the discussion here Wikidata:Project_chat#Why_are_labels_of_occupation_always_male_labels?. PAC2 (talk) 20:09, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Director of GLAM institution as occupation or position

Teolemon
Netoholic
econterms
Jneubert
Moebeus
Albertvillanovadelmoral
salgo60
Epìdosis

Notified participants of WikiProject Occupations and professions Hi all! As of now museum director (Q22132694) and library director (Q63970319) (note: "archive director" and "gallery director" don't exist as of now) are used half times with occupation (P106) and half times with position held (P39), which makes it difficult to find them through queries. Since they are mainly positions in my opinion, I propose to move all of them to position held (P39) through {{Autofix}}; of course, also the contrary (move to occupation (P106)) would be possible and equally easy. Opinions? Thanks, --Epìdosis 08:08, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Epìdosis Sounds logical en:nota bene occupations/professions is a small mess I did a a small check what archives in Sweden use see GITHUB as Wikidata "imports" this mess we have a big challenge - Salgo60 (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Agree the first proposal. Nomen ad hoc (talk) 14:27, 4 May 2022 (UTC).

 Done, thanks for the comments. --Epìdosis 06:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

What should worker (Q327055) be an instance / subclass of?

worker (Q327055) has been a subclass of person (Q215627) until October 30th 2023. Then user Asterix2023 changed it to being a subclass of role (Q4897819). This way worker (Q327055) has been both a direct subclass and an indirect instance of role (Q4897819). I changed it back to person (Q215627) in December 2023 (after a very small talk (me and another person)) on its talk page. Today CV213 changed it back to being an (indirect) subclass of role (Q4897819), without giving any reasons.

I came to this site to look if there are any rules what an occupation should be a subclass of (person? role? activity?) Surprisingly, I could not find a decision about that. Has there been a decision that I just could not find or is this still up for debate? Thanks for your help! - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

A worker certainly is not a subclass of a person, the claim that a worker is a subclass of human has been removed several times. Humans can assume the role "worker". "person" in this context is just another way of saying "human". CV213 (talk) 15:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@CV213: The description of this item is "person who works". I would argue that "worker" is a class of persons that have the occupation worker / a class of persons that assume the role of a worker, just as "human" is a class of persons that are of the species human or modern human.

I agree that worker (Q327055) is a role (instance of). This has been expressed by the statement worker (Q327055)instance of (P31)occupation (Q12737077) with occupation (Q12737077) being an indirect subclass of role (Q4897819). But I disagree that individual workers (people working as a worker) are roles. People are people, not roles. - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Then fix the description if you feel that doesn't fit the modelling. Of course you can define subclasses of the class human, but that is not the way things are done in WD. You cannot have both, worker is a 1) role and a 2) person (who works)". Don't make the mistake to argue using common language, that is no fit in ontology modelling. InstanceOf means, the entity is that for all their existence, but individual humans that "are" workers, aren't workers for all their life. They assume different roles, e.g. schoolkid, student, employee, president, pensioner. CV213 (talk) 22:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Things may be modelled in different ways. You did not give a reason why subclass of person does not work and why subclass of occupation is better. You just gave a reason why we should use occupation (P106) instead of instance of (P31) when indicating that a certain person is a worker. But this is not up for debate. I never argued for using instance of (P31) to express that a certain person is a worker. To express this we have to use occupation (P106), of course.

After your edit employee (Q703534) is both an (indirect) subclass of and a direct instance of occupation (Q12737077) and so are 6149 others, including those that are instances of profession (Q28640). This is definitely not a good way of modelling. There are currently 12921 occupations in Wikidata being a direct instance of occupation (Q12737077) or profession (Q28640) (which is a subclass of occupation (Q12737077)).

Worker has not been defined as a subclass of human (Q5) but as a subclass of person (Q215627). Person is not a subclass of human.

I never defined worker (Q327055) as a person but as a subclass of person. The statement has been worker (Q327055)subclass of (P279)person (Q215627). Expressed in common language this means "every entity being a worker is a person". - Valentina.Anitnelav (talk) 09:03, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Things may be modelled in different ways. of course, correct or wrong, I vote for correct. You did not give a reason why subclass of person does not work it is just the way how it is done. You said the roles have to be stored in occupation (P106), then if the occupation/role is a subclass of Person, an individual Person would have Role=Person.

I agree that entities shouldn't be instanceOf Role and subclassOf Role. This should be fixed too.

Worker has not been defined as a subclass of human (Q5) but as a subclass of person (Q215627). I addressed that 15:32 11 February 2024 ("person" in this context is just another way of saying "human"). Person in WD is mostly Human and something else. They are not Role. Role and Person are distinct. Role is a realizable entity that depends on an entity for which it can be realized. Person is such an entity. CV213 (talk) 13:55, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

As I said on the Project chat. The problem is the classic one of instance becoming a subclass as soon as its subdivided. This is fixed by having a X_type which all things are instance of (P31) off, and then using subclass of (P279) to see how they are related. See light cruiser (Q778129)} which is a ship type (Q2235308) and then using subclass of (P279) is a cruiser < warship < ship < watercraft. You could have occupation_type. Vicarage (talk) 15:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

The discussion here so far has been about disjoint classes Role and Person. Do you suggest to create Role_type and Person_type? CV213 (talk) 17:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Rename the project to Role

Maybe it should be named Role? CV213 (talk) 22:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

instanceOf Role and subclassOf Person/Human

1. https://w.wiki/99Tr 5519 instanceOf occupation/profession and subclassOf Person
2. https://w.wiki/99U5 164 instanceOf occupation/profession and subclassOf Human

All wrong. And why most of these are only subclassOf Person and not Human isn't obvious. Which Person having profession or occupation association football player is not instanceOf Human?

The relation between occupation/profession/role is:

1. profession (Q28640) subclassOf occupation (Q12737077)
2. occupation (Q12737077) subclassOf social position (Q1807498)
3. social position (Q1807498) subclassOf role (Q214339)
4. role (Q214339) subclassOf role (Q4897819)

So instead of using UNION in the above queries, once could write them using role (Q4897819) (https://w.wiki/99Vf), but then SPARQL gives timeout. CV213 (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)