- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2012 17:41:52 +0000
- To: Government Linked Data Working Group WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
On 28/01/2012 10:39, Government Linked Data Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > > ISSUE-19: How to relate a person to an organisation [People] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/19 > > Raised by: Michael Hausenblas > On product: People > > Using the organization ontology [1] - how are people related to organizations? To what extend should this be detailed out? I'd say it shouldn't. The power of Dublin Core is that it is very generic and you can readily make sub properties and sub classes. I'd leave it at that level for our work. The org ontology allows you already to see where someone works and who they report to - that's pretty good I'd say. Three anecdotes: "You can't tell people how to use your spec - they'll use it the way they want to" (Dan Brickley 2004) "Ah jees don't fill your vocabulary with domains and ranges. You put them in and 5 minutes later wish you hadn't as everyone tells you they'd love to use your terms but they can't because of the restrictions." (Chaals 2007) "What's the one bit of POWDER that has had any traction? wdrs:describedby. It is explicitly defined in such a way that when you write A wdrs:describedby B you are saying nothing more than that B offers a description of B with no inference of what manner of thing A or B might be." (me, just now ;-) ) KISS and all that. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/ns/org# > > > > -- Phil Archer W3C eGovernment http://www.w3.org/egov/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Friday, 3 February 2012 17:42:19 UTC