- From: Bart van Leeuwen <Bart_van_Leeuwen@netage.nl>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 00:16:45 +0100
- To: public-gld-wg@w3.org
- Message-ID: <OFC27999FE.94DEB703-ONC1257ABD.007A27CC-C1257ABD.007FE042@netage.nl>
Hi Joćo, This is probably a question I should answer, I was the one who asked for the post - organization change. I work in the field of Crisis and Disaster management, one thing I wanted be able to do is express a crisis command and control structure. In those situations all partners in the crisis organization gather, and there need to be representatives of those organizations who hold a post in this new organization. The actual composition of the organization is highly dependent on the type of incident. Small example, a large incident demands a predetermined organization for its central command, in general this is composed of a fixed set of people, and extended with concerned parties when needed. So if something happens in a harbor you would like to have harbor authorities on the table, they take a POST as concerned party, but are represented by a ORGanization through a PERSON which is available at that time. During longer running incident the PERSON will be replaced, but the ORGanization keeps its POST. So the reporting lines always go through posts and not through people in this case. The same goes for the governmental leader of the organization which is in highest state the majors office, this ORGanization is commonly represented by the major himself, but when he is not available, he could be part of the crisis or just on holiday, the POST is still filled up by his office, the ORGanization. In the earlier incarnation it was not possible to model this, PERSONs were always reporting where in my case ORGanizations are reporting hence the changes we did. as for the property assignments I think Dave should step in as the author of the document. 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 ############################################################## From: Joćo Paulo Almeida <jpalmeida@inf.ufes.br> To: <public-gld-wg@w3.org>, Date: 21-11-2012 20:26 Subject: some questions about the ORG Ontology Sent by: Joćo Paulo Almeida <jpandradealmeida@gmail.com> Dear All, I have some questions about the ORG Ontology: Can Posts contain sub Organizational Units? This is currently allowed in the ontology, but does not seem to make sense to me when I think of applications and the intuitive connotation of Post. (I am still trying to make sense of what are the benefits of Post being a subclass of Organization. The fact that a Post can be held by multiple people does not seem to be enough, since Post could also be a direct subclass of foaf:Agent, in which case it could be a foaf:Group.) What is the difference between hasSubOrganization - when used between org:Organization and org:Post - and hasPost (which has domain Organization and range Post)? If there is no difference (and if one insists that Post is a subclass of Organization) shouldn't org:hasPost be a subproperty of org:hasSubOrganization (just like org:hasUnit is)? If an agent is a member of a sub organization (O2), which is a sub organization of an organization (O1), is the agent also a member of O1? Suppose that we're talking about a particular University, e.g., "The Federal University of Espķrito Santo". Would we then have different Posts for each of the "Associate Professors" that are members of the university? Is organization (domain org:Membership, range foaf:Agent) a functional property? (I think so.) Is organization (domain org:Membership, range org:Organization) a functional property? Is role (domain org:Membership, range org:Role) a functional property? regards, Joćo Paulo
Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2012 23:17:15 UTC