Wikidata:Property proposal/Dictionary of Occupational Titles ID

Dictionary of Occupational Titles ID

Originally proposed at Wikidata:Property proposal/Authority control

   Withdrawn

Description	identifier for occupational titles in the Dictionary of Occupational Titles (fourth edition, revised)
Represents	Dictionary of Occupational Titles (Online) (Q98280774)
Data type	External identifier
Domain	profession (Q28640), occupation (Q13516667)
Allowed values	\d{2}\/\d{9}
Example 1	forest ecologist (Q98280708) → 04/040061030
Example 2	airport baggage handler (Q4841568) → 91/910687010
Example 3	judge (Q16533) → 11/111107010
Example 4	optometrist (Q9052719) → 07/079101018
Example 5	nurse midwife (Q85790021) → 07/075264014
Example 6	librarian (Q182436) → 10/100127014
Example 7	building manager (Q84312746) → 38/382664010
Source	https://occupationalinfo.org/
Planned use	will add as needed for occupation of persons
Number of IDs in source	unknown
Expected completeness	always incomplete (Q21873886)
Formatter URL	https://occupationalinfo.org/$1.html
See also	Wikidata:Property proposal/Dictionary of Occupational Titles Code (fourth edition, revised) ROME Occupation Code (P867), NOC Occupation Code (P918), SOC Code (2010) (P919), ISCO-88 occupation class (P952), KldB-2010 occupation code (P1021), CNO-11 occupation code (P1022), SBC-2010 occupation code (P1023), SBFI occupation code (P1024), IDEO Job ID (P1043), Portuguese Job Code CPP-2010 (P1052), Statistics Denmarks classification of occupation (DISCO-08) (P1069), ESCO Occupation ID (P4652), ISCO-08 occupation class (P8283)

Motivation

This source of occupational titles has terms that are not available in other vocabularies such as LCSH and LCDGT and will be a useful identifier to include in items when one is available. Today I created an item for "forest ecologist" and the only external identifier I was able to find for this was in this dictionary of occupational titles. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 11:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

Discussion

•  Comment Note the "codes" listed in the dictionary differ from these ID's (which seem to be based on the web page locations) - for example for Optometrist the code is actually '079.101-018'. ArthurPSmith (talk) 16:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment I was thinking of proposing a separate property for the code, if you think that would be a useful additional property. Adam L. Schiff (talk) 17:23, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment Are these codes still authoritative in any way (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_Occupational_Titles and is this the authorative website for this)? I am bit confused, in Wikipedia it says "The DOT was later rendered obsolete and was replaced by an online database which was based largely on voluntary input from occupation incumbents" -- is this the website we are looking at or an un-authorized reproduction? What about https://www.onetcenter.org/overview.html ? It does seem quite comprehensive so I am slightly in favor. Also, can we use the hierarchy in any way to map to the hierarchy we have here at WD? --Hannes Röst (talk) 21:31, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment The online site says "This is the complete Dictionary of Occupational Titles (DOT) revised fourth edition, as supplied electronically by the US Dept. of Labor, provided, as a public service, by ITA, makers of DOT and O*Net for Windows". Both the DOT and the ONET sources are used regularly by catalogers recording occupations in LC name authority records, so while the DOT is no longer published in print, the online site is consulted regularly to record occupations of persons in name authorities. If ONET online doesn't have its own external identifier property, I will propose that too, since catalogers use both sources for occupation terms, particularly when one is not available in LCSH or LCDGT. Adam L. Schiff (talk) 22:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment The U.S. Department of Labor also maintains an online version of the DOT, but in a form unsuitable for linking from Wikidata. The DOL site (https://www.dol.gov/agencies/oalj/topics/libraries/LIBDOT) says "So, why is the DOT still on the Office of Administrative Law Judges (OALJ) website? It is because the DOT is still used in Social Security disability adjudications and the OALJ copy of the DOT is often cited as an authoritative source of the DOT." So while DOT has been replaced by ONET as a source of occupational information, the DOT is still used by catalogers. Adam L. Schiff (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment looking at Wikidata property for items about occupations (Q24043375), I found no less than 13 identifiers for occupations, including country specific ones from France (2x), Canada, US, Germany, Spain, Dutch, Switzerland, Portugal, Denmark, Europe, and two international systems ISCO-88 occupation class (P952) and ISCO-08 occupation class (P8283). It seem like a lot of systems (however only 5 have more than 100 items). Have you looked at SOC Code (2010) (P919) and Standard Occupational Classification System (Q7598269) -- do we need two systems for the US or would one suffice? Will we need all three DOT, ONET and SOCS, are there any mapping tables? I am just trying to understand how to best approach this. --Hannes Röst (talk) 01:01, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Comment I personally think that if there are identifiers for occupations from different sources/systems, that the number of them isn't really relevant. Wikidata ought to be able to link from an occupation item to any equivalent other code or vocabulary sources. Within the Library of Congress Name Authority File, there are only a few vocabularies for occupations that have been assigned codes that can be used in MARC authority records. That list is at https://www.loc.gov/standards/sourcelist/occupation.html. As you can see, DOT and ONET are among those that catalogers can use and specify where the occupation term comes from. In NACO, we only use English-language terms in authority records, so we would not have any use for lists of terms from Germany, Spain, etc. In LC/NACO authority records, we do not record codes for occupations, only terms, but we can link from a term to the URI for the term in a particular source vocabulary. I don't see that Wikidata should sanction or prefer one source of identifiers over any others. If there a different sources that define and provide a URI or code for "anesthesiologist", I say let them all be able to be recorded in Wikidata. --Adam L. Schiff (talk) 23:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Support IMO Wikidata should and will end up being the mapping table between all of these. We should be the Rosetta stone of the internet, cataloging what every language, every site, and every catalog calls every (notable) entity. --99of9 (talk) 03:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
•  Support can you change the description to specify the version (4.0) of the codes? I think the code itself should also be recorded as has been suggested above. --Hannes Röst (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
• Maybe it would be good to see how this is different from Wikidata:Property proposal/Dictionary of Occupational Titles Code (fourth edition, revised) by having (at least a few) samples for the same occupation.  Oppose having both. --- Jura 13:06, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
  • janitor and librarian are examples in both proposals. --- UWashPrincipalCataloger 18:44, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
• @99of9, Hannes Röst, ArthurPSmith: please see Wikidata:Property proposal/Dictionary of Occupational Titles Code (fourth edition, revised). This is essentially the same, but the format proposed there seems preferable. --- Jura 11:09, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
• @UWashPrincipalCataloger: This proposal should be obsolete now that Dictionary of Occupational Titles Code (fourth edition, revised) (P8679) has a formatter URL, do you agree? --Emu (talk) 10:41, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
• @Emu: Yes it can probably be withdrawn. UWashPrincipalCataloger (talk) 16:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)