- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:11:16 +0000
- 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 14:11:56 UTC