W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2011

Re: How to express something is-located-at an org:Site

From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:11:16 +0000
Message-ID: <4EB93884.4030606@w3.org>
To: Jakob Voss <jakob.voss@gbv.de>
CC: public-lod@w3.org, Dave Reynolds <dave@epimorphics.com>, Public GLD WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Adding GLD WG and @der

Hi Jakob,

Thanks for raising this. Can I ask you what your use case is?

The Government Linked Data Working Group [1] is chartered to look at 
this ontology and your use cases would be useful input to that process.

Thanks

Phil.

[1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/charter

-- 


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

http://philarcher.org
@philarcher1


On 08/11/2011 13:49, Jakob Voss wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The Organization Ontology as described at
>
> http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html
>
> contains org:Site for location information, both physical and
> non-physical. There are properties to connect organizations and sites
> (org:hasSite / org:siteOf) and to connect People and sites
> (org:basedAt). But these properties have no general super-property to
> express that something (not necessarily an org:Organization or
> foaf:Person) is located at an org:Site.
>
> I found the following properties that may match:
>
> 1. dcterms:spatial
> (http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-spatial) has range
> dcterms:Location
> (http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#classes-Location) for "A
> spatial region or named place"
>
> 2. http://dbpedia.org/ontology/location has range
> http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Place for "Immobile things or locations"
>
> 3. http://schema.org/location has range http://schema.org/Place which is
> for "Entities that have a somewhat fixed, physical extension".
>
> Each choice would make org:Site a subclass of or equivalent to another
> class for places. I'd prefer not to create yet another property but use
> an existing one, so could the Organization Ontology be aligned to one of
> the three ontologies listed above?
>
> Thanks
> Jakob
>
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 14:11:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:36 UTC