Implementation questions about the ORG Ontology

Hi GLD-WG.

As indicated in my earlier mail I'm now looking at implementation 
scenarios for the various products of our working group.

One of the things we would like to do is to have a structure to exchange 
information about 'Chain of command' situations.
In my work, organizations are not build up around individuals, but around 
roles people have. This counts for our own organization, as much as I love 
my job I'm not there 24/7, but also for the organizations we deal with.
We are interested in exchanging details about the structure of a 
organization without directly filling out the names. 

To give two small examples.
1) Hotels 
Hotels need to have a evacuation staff, in case of fire alarms they have 
several tasks in conjunction with the fire department, the size of this 
group might vary over the time of day.
We are not so interested in all the names of people who are "fire 
department contacts" in crisis situation, because only one of them will be 
on the scene anyway, or will play that role during an incident.
The same applies to the evacuation staff, we are not interested in the 
individuals, but more the numbers, if during a night shift only 2 people 
with the 'evacuation' role are present we need to scale up on our side.
A schema of which roles are there on specific times of the day and how 
their internal reporting structure is organized would be interesting 
information.

2) Cross border incidents
If a incident happens on the border between two countries the parties on 
both sides would like to know what the chain of command is on the other 
side, which person has the credentials to make political / public 
decisions, who should we talk to, and what is the status of their role 
against the roles on this side of the border. Since roles are identified 
through SKOS:Concepts its really easy to formalize the comparison of the 
roles. A Crisis staff in general is assembled from people who are 
available or on duty at that time, the formation of a crisis staff puts a 
individual in the position of a decision making role. In practice this 
means that on forehand its now known who the exact individual will be 
during a time of crisis, we just know this role needs to be fulfilled

>From what I understand from the ORG ontology documentation is that I can 
draw this organizational schema by tracking down people and then draw the 
lines from Role to Role.
However there doesn't seem to be a way to draw a organizational structure 
without names, but with a command chain. What does sort of work is to have 
anonymous foaf:Agents but that doesn't feel right since a foaf:Agent 
actually represents a instance which is not there yet. Also there are 
situations where the Role is present in the schema, but at the specific 
time there is no one fulfilling it.

Before making comments on changing the ontology itself I wanted to be sure 
I didn't miss something in the documentation, completely misunderstand the 
point or that this use case is out of scope.


Met Vriendelijke Groet / With Kind Regards
Bart van Leeuwen
@semanticfire

##############################################################
# netage.nl
# http://netage.nl
# Enschedepad 76
# 1324 GJ Almere
# The Netherlands
# tel. +31(0)36-5347479
##############################################################