W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: ISSUE-19: How to relate a person to an organisation [People]

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:41:52 +0000
Message-ID: <4F2C1C60.3070304@w3.org>
To: Government Linked Data Working Group WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
On 28/01/2012 10:39, Government Linked Data Working Group Issue Tracker 
wrote:
>
> ISSUE-19: How to relate a person to an organisation [People]
>
> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/19
>
> Raised by: Michael Hausenblas
> On product: People
>
> Using the organization ontology [1] - how are people related to organizations? To what extend should this be detailed out?

I'd say it shouldn't. The power of Dublin Core is that it is very 
generic and you can readily make sub properties and sub classes. I'd 
leave it at that level for our work. The org ontology allows you already 
to see where someone works and who they report to - that's pretty good 
I'd say.

Three anecdotes:

"You can't tell people how to use your spec - they'll use it the way 
they want to" (Dan Brickley 2004)

"Ah jees don't fill your vocabulary with domains and ranges. You put 
them in and 5 minutes later wish you hadn't as everyone tells you they'd 
love to use your terms but they can't because of the restrictions." 
(Chaals 2007)

"What's the one bit of POWDER that has had any traction? 
wdrs:describedby. It is explicitly defined in such a way that when you 
write A wdrs:describedby B you are saying nothing more than that B 
offers a description of B with no inference of what manner of thing A or 
B might be." (me, just now ;-) )

KISS and all that.



>
> [1]  http://www.w3.org/ns/org#
>
>
>
>


-- 


Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
http://www.w3.org/egov/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 17:42:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:32:35 UTC