- From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 16:50:42 +0000
- To: Paul Groth <p.t.groth@vu.nl>, l.moreau@ecs.soton.ac.uk
- CC: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Thanks again to the Provenance working group for feedback on the Last
Call version of the ORG ontology. We have separately responded to that
feedback.
While not part of that feedback, the GLD working has noted that PROV-O
contains a term prov:Organization [1] and feels that it would be
appropriate to clarify the relationship between that and
org:Organization [2].
The GLD working group is thus considering adding some formal assertion
of that relationship to the ORG ontology. We have two obvious choices.
(1) We could assert:
org:Organization rdfs:subClassOf prov:Organization .
This would reinforce that any org:Organization may be treated as a
prov:Organization and used within provenance statements.
(2) We could assert more strongly that:
org:Organization owl:equivalentClass prov:Organization .
As far as we can tell the intention behind both classes is the same and
so this seems reasonable. However, since ORG already states:
org:Organization owl:equivalentClass foaf:Organization .
this would imply that prov:Organization is also equivalent to
foaf:Organization. We note that PROV-O does not declare any
relationship to foaf and so are not sure if this entailment would be
regarded as problematic from your viewpoint.
Please may we have your comment on whether either of (1) or (2) seem
appropriate to you and which would be preferred.
Thanks and best wishes,
Dave
[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/prov-o/#Organization
[2]
https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#org:Organization
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 16:51:17 UTC