Re: some questions about the ORG Ontology

Hi,

I believe organization is being used in a different "sense" 
(collaboration) from the original scope. Specifically, GLD organization 
should clarify semantics for groupings whose end was not deterministic at 
the time of its creation (perpetual intent) rather than collaborations/ 
groupings which are created to resolve a specific, short-term, event and 
then disbanded.

Perpetual intended grouping examples ("organizations"): UN, companies, 
government departments, universities, disaster management centers, ...

Tactical intended grouping examples ("collaborations"): incident response 
teams, military operations, recovery missions

If we mix the two, not only we confuse the reader/ user but also would be 
incomplete. Specifically, there is a lot of work in defining how 
collaborations should be formed, the organizations which should be 
represented, the roles that should be played, the posts (titles) they 
should take, etc. See [1], [2] for some background on collaborations and 
[3] for IT technologies involved.

We should clarify the intended sense of organization.

Further, if we have the right experts, it may not be a bad idea to take a 
specific collaboration example and make sure that the intended semantics 
of organization is illustrated. For example, we can take traffic incident 
management collaboration. Now, when we want a fire department 
representative in an incident team to resolve a traffic incident, we want 
someone who is in the role of fire fighting and not someone who manages 
their finance. 

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incident_Command_System
[2] http://www.ready.gov/business/implementation/incident
[3] http://xml.coverpages.org/emergencyManagement.html
Regards,
--Biplav

 


From:
Bart van Leeuwen <Bart_van_Leeuwen@netage.nl>
To:
public-gld-wg@w3.org
Date:
11/22/2012 04:46 AM
Subject:
Re: some questions about the ORG Ontology



Hi João, 

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:        João 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:        João 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 Espírito 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, 
João Paulo