- From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2012 07:46:15 +0000
- To: Stasinos Konstantopoulos <konstant@iit.demokritos.gr>
- Cc: Government Linked Data Working Group WG <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
Stasinos, > If the intended usage is one of describing organizational structure, > the Org ontology (or whatever we end up using to represent > organizations) should be adequate, as arbitrarily small > OrganizationUnitS can have individual hasSite properties, which can be > arbitrarily fine-grained, down to a desk in an office in a building at > an address somewhere on the planet. Again, it's a matter of allowing a > fine enough address schema. I'm not disagreeing here, but we're in the spec writing business and not having an academic discussion. Can you please provide me with a Turtle snippet in ORG + vCard that does the same as: [[ @prefix rooms: <http://vocab.deri.ie/rooms#> . @prefix : <>. <http://colcids.com/person/42> a foaf:Person . :CCHQ a rooms:Building ; rooms:contains :r101 . :r101 a rooms:Room ; rooms:occupant <http://colcids.com/person/42> . ]] Cheers, Michael -- Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway Ireland, Europe Tel. +353 91 495730 http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ http://sw-app.org/about.html On 30 Jan 2012, at 07:26, Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote: > Still, it seems to me that this is not a separate issue. > > If the intended usage is one of finding out how to reach people, it is > a matter of defining/choosing a contact information schema that is > detailed enough to achieve this. > > If the intended usage is one of describing organizational structure, > the Org ontology (or whatever we end up using to represent > organizations) should be adequate, as arbitrarily small > OrganizationUnitS can have individual hasSite properties, which can be > arbitrarily fine-grained, down to a desk in an office in a building at > an address somewhere on the planet. Again, it's a matter of allowing a > fine enough address schema. > > s > > > On 30 January 2012 09:07, Michael Hausenblas > <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> wrote: >> >> Stasinos, >> >> Thanks for your question. >> >> >>> What is the use case for this? >> >> >> >> For example, we use it in http://lab.linkeddata.deri.ie/2010/deri-rooms >> ... >> >> >>> I mean, how is this different from >>> representing contact information for a person (ISSUE 24)? >> >> >> >> See [1] - in a sense an extension of contact information with >> potentially >> finer granular descriptions than an address. >> >> Cheers, >> Michael >> >> [1] >> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/people/ >> index.html#relating-a-person-to-a-building-or-room >> -- >> Dr. Michael Hausenblas, Research Fellow >> LiDRC - Linked Data Research Centre >> DERI - Digital Enterprise Research Institute >> NUIG - National University of Ireland, Galway >> Ireland, Europe >> Tel. +353 91 495730 >> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/ >> http://sw-app.org/about.html >> >> On 30 Jan 2012, at 07:02, Stasinos Konstantopoulos wrote: >> >>> Michael, all, >>> >>> What is the use case for this? I mean, how is this different from >>> representing contact information for a person (ISSUE 24)? >>> >>> Best, >>> Stasinos >>> >>> >>> On 29 January 2012 13:07, Government Linked Data Working Group Issue >>> Tracker <sysbot+tracker@w3.org> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> ISSUE-23: How to relate a person to a building/room? [People] >>>> >>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/23 >>>> >>>> Raised by: Michael Hausenblas >>>> On product: People >>>> >>>> There are really two issues here, namely how to represent >>>> buildings and >>>> rooms and how to relate a person to the building/room. It seems >>>> that the >>>> Buildings and Rooms Vocabulary [1] would in fact be capable to do >>>> this, >>>> however the namespace is sub-optimal, in terms of stability. >>>> >>>> [1] http://vocab.deri.ie/rooms# >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>
Received on Monday, 30 January 2012 07:46:57 UTC