W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Organization ontology

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2010 17:46:54 +0100
To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <1275410814.4073.35.camel@dave-desktop>
Hi Bernard,

On Tue, 2010-06-01 at 17:03 +0200, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> Hi Dave
> Great resource indeed. One remark, one suggestion, and one question :)
> Remark : Just found out what seems to be a mistake in the N3 file.
> org:role a owl:ObjectProperty, rdf:Property;
>     rdfs:label "role"@en;
>     rdfs:domain org:Membership;
>     rdfs:range  foaf:Agent;
>     ...
> I guess one should read :    rdfs:range  org:Role

Oops, thanks, will get that fixed shortly (hopefully tonight or

> Suggestion : I always feel uneasy with having class and property just
> distinct by upper/lower case. Suggest to change the property to
> org:hasRole

Names are always hard! 

Some people have commented that I should just use nouns (e.g. see
comments on [1]). My rationale has been that some relations (e.g.
unitOf, subOrganizationOf) really need to have a direction indicated and
so use phrases for those. Then for things that are clearly attributes
use simple nouns. Other cases are grey. I've thought of the properties
of org:Membership as being attributes of an n-ary relation and so gone
for nouns there. This helps to avoid confusion with the direct relations
- if I used org:hasRole then I ought to use org:hasMember which would
clash with the short cut use of org:memberOf.

> Question : Will RDF-XML file available at some point?

It is. Use content negotiation:

  curl -H "Accept: application/rdf+xml" http://www.w3.org/ns/org#

or point your browser at http://www.w3.org/ns/org.rdf


Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2010 16:47:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:06 UTC