Re: some questions about the ORG Ontology

Hi Biplav,

As Chris says organizations come and go. ORG makes no distinction 
between an organization that is intended to last a long time (but might 
still cease to exist tomorrow) from one intended to last a short time.

The only requirement for an org:Organization is that it is not just a 
set of people but it has some purpose or reason for existence that goes 
beyond the group of people who are within it.

There's no *problem* using ORG for transient collaborations. It might 
not on its own be *sufficient* for a given modelling purpose. You might 
want to say other things about such collaborations beyond what you can 
say with ORG (e.g. expected duration, or a detailed description of the 
purpose and processes).

Dave

On 22/11/12 04:28, Biplav Srivastava wrote:
>
> 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 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_ <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 Thursday, 22 November 2012 17:08:06 UTC