W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-wg@w3.org > April 2013

Re: update on Exit Criteria, was Re: ORG futures

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:30:25 +0100
Message-ID: <516E4F91.8030703@gmail.com>
To: James McKinney <james@opennorth.ca>
CC: W3C public GLD WG WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Hi James,

On 17/04/13 04:48, James McKinney wrote:
>
> On 2013-04-16, at 5:48 PM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>
>> In trying to figure how to approach CR I've been thinking of ORG as a
>> simple core (the notion of an organization, minimal properties for
>> describing and classifying one, simple membership properties) plus a
>> set of "features". These are:
>>  1. sites and addresses
>>  2. organizational substructure
>>  3. posts
>>  4. roles and the org:Membership n-ary relation
>>  5. historical information
>>  6. collaborations
>>
>> Each "feature" is a bundle of classes, properties and the occasional
>> axiom.
>>
>> The early ones are used a lot. It's less clear how much the later ones
>> have been used to date.
>>
>> The thing I'm mulling over is that if no one during CR touches a
>> feature at all, say historical information, then we might worry it has
>> not had sufficient work out to be sure it is fit for purpose. Whereas
>> if they touch a feature but don't use every corner if it then that's fine.
>
> In my own work and efforts to get ORG adopted, 2, 3 and 4 are used
> extensively. So far, 6 has never come up.

Interesting, thanks.

[snip]

> For 5, org:memberDuring is the only property in that bundle, as far as I
> know.

No, by that I meant org:ChangeEvent, the associated four properties and 
the property chain axiom introduced to improve the link with PROV.

This was intended to for expressing things like "department X was formed 
by merging department Y and department Z".

Dave
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2013 07:30:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 25 June 2013 15:04:59 UTC