Solid People to RDF : Which Ontologies about team HOT 3 OPEN

Just curious -- there is https://schema.org/worksFor. I'm wondering if that might be more intuitive than https://www.w3.org/ns/org#postin.

from team.

I'd like to see the gender pronouns in a bigger vocabulary, my first choice would have been FOAF, but I'm not sure that FOAF is being updated anymore, so perhaps schema.org.

Schema.org has a gender property, which permits a URI or a literal, and the literal is so far encouraged for non-binary gender identities. Schema.org also has https://schema.org/GenderType but the subclasses only include Male and Female. But there's nothing stopping us from generating more subclasses. I guess we could start from something like https://ok2bme.ca/resources/kids-teens/what-does-lgbtq-mean/

from team.

@kay-kim - We can use any label we want for an ontology term. So what the user sees can be "Works for" regardless of which RDF ontology term we use. The ontology will mostly be handled behind the scenes by the software, it's not really for human consumption. I'd value your thoughts on the human consumption bits - user display and searching - here.

In terms of the ontology , you may be right that the schema:worksFor is a better choice. I made a mistake, the full semantics looks like this :

 <PersonX> org:holds [                                                           
   a org:Post ;                                                                 
   org:postin org:Organization ;                                                
   foaf:label "senior software developer" ;                                     
   org:role "front-end software developer" ;                                    
] .

So it lets us specify both the postition and the role, which convey different information. This is a much richer semantics than schema:worksFor which, AFAIK, has no implied semantic relationships. This may be overkill for our purposes.

from team.