W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-comments@w3.org > April 2012

Re: Vocabulary alignment

From: Simon Reinhardt <simon.reinhardt@koeln.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2012 20:53:44 +0200
Message-ID: <4F8481B8.4040301@koeln.de>
To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
CC: public-gld-comments@w3.org
Hi Dave,

Thanks for your reply. The explanations make perfect sense so considering org I'm happy with your comments.

Regards,
Simon


Dave Reynolds wrote:
> Hi Simon,
>
> Thanks for your comments. Here I'm only going to address your questions on org [4].
>
> On 05/04/12 23:49, Simon Reinhardt wrote:
>
>> The "Data Catalog Vocabulary" [2] uses a term from FOAF, namely
>> foaf:Organization. "Terms for describing people" [3] then also seems to
>> be largely based on FOAF, and based on "An organization ontology" [4]
>> which, however, defines its own class org:Organization. Was there a
>> particular reason for that?
>
> Yes.
>
> Originally we believed there were differences in intention between org:Organization and foaf:Organization. The foaf definition talks particularly about "social institutions". However, following discussions with the FOAF maintainers, particular Dan Brickley, we concluded the intentions were identical and so added the equivalence relation.
>
> At that stage it would have been possible to deprecate org:Organization in favour of foaf:Organization. However, since by then there were public sector bodies starting to use org:Organization we felt the change would be disruptive.
>
> There are also some advantages to having all the key properties for the ontology be in the same namespace, though that is certainly not a universal rule.
>
>> And also for defining org:hasMember as an
>> equivalent property to foaf:member instead of re-using that?
>
> Originally there was only org:memberOf. In increasing the alignment to FOAF Dan suggested that adding an explicit inverse (org:hasMember) would be symmetrical (we have inverses for most properties) and would allow us to map that to foaf:member.
>
> This and the earlier history are noted in the change history [7].
>
>> (Btw: The section about org:hasMember mentions an inverse org:memberOf
>> which is not defined separately.
>
> An omission in the documentation, it is there in the ontology.
> That has been fixed in the source text.
>
>> But I'm actually in favour of not
>> defining inverses.
>
> I can sympathize with that but one has to adopt one style or the other. See [8].
>
>> And the domain and range of org:hasMember seem switched.)
>
> They were correct in the ontology but swapped in the documentation.
> Now fixed in the source text.
>
>
> Please could you let us know if this response is acceptable.
>
> Thanks,
> Dave
>
>> [1] https://plus.google.com/102497386507936526460/posts/Xswyq5GxdvL
>> [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-dcat/
>> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-people/
>> [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/
>> [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/void/
>> [6] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-data-cube/
>
> [7] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/#change-history
> [8] http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/#notes-on-style
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:54:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 April 2012 18:54:26 GMT