Re: [foaf-dev] Re: Fwd: stability of foaf:Organization

Hi all,

> > I am happy amending vs:term_status to "stable". The same with
> > Organization, see http://xmlns.com/foaf/0.1/#term_Organization
> >
> > {{{
> > Class: foaf:Organization
> > Organization - An organization.
> > Status:         unstable
> >
> > The foaf:Organization class represents a kind of foaf:Agent
> > corresponding to social instititutions such as companies, societies
> > etc.
> > }}}
> >
> >
> > There is a "health warning" note on Organization, which I added in
> > recognition that there was apparent scope-overlap between Organization
> > and Group. It reads as follows:
> >
> > {{{
> > This is a more 'solid' class than foaf:Group, which allows for more
> > ad-hoc collections of individuals. These terms are rather roughly
> > defined, and further work is needed to clearly specify their
> > inter-relationships.
> > }}}
> >
> > I propose to integrate this into the description of Organization as
> > follows:
> >
> > Edit to say
> >
> > """This is a more 'solid' class than foaf:Group, which allows for more
> > ad-hoc collections of individuals. These terms, like the corresponding
> > natural language concepts, have some overlap, but different emphasis.
> > """
> >

As dealing with foaf:Organisation, what about foaf:Group /
foaf:Organisation subclassing ? [1]
(if 'more solid' can be seen as 'subclass of')
Or at least, change the domain of foaf:member so that a
foaf:Organisation can have members ?

Best,

Alex.

[1] http://lists.foaf-project.org/pipermail/foaf-dev/2007-January/008396.html