- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2013 08:30:25 +0100
- 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