Person class

Hi all,

I'm arriving to this WG somewhere in the middle of its mandate, so I apologize if I raise issues that have been discussed already. I read most of the mailing list archive, but I haven't had an opportunity to read all the minutes.

From what I understand, the WG will not propose a new Person class. As raised in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0059.html, the question is then, what Person class to recommend? There seems to be the most support for Schema.org's Person:

> From: Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org> 
> PROPOSAL: [...] the WG adopts the relevant terms to describe people from Schema.org and to address the UCR, where terms are missing in Schema.org, an extension MAY be proposed to the Schema.org consortium. For other, relevant vocabularies, such as FOAF, vCard, ISA Core, the People vocabulary MUST define canonical, normative mappings.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0038.html

And:

> From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
> PROPOSAL 2: [...] the WG recommends the relevant terms to describe people from Schema.org and to address the UCR.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0042.html

Is it relevant that none of schema.org's class URLs resolve to RDF, and that all of its property URLs 404? Schema.org doesn't see it as an urgent issue: http://www.w3.org/2011/webschema/track/issues/2

At http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0059.html, it's suggested that, once the ISA Person Core Vocabulary comes under the W3 namespace, it will not define a Person class: "person:Person will disappear into the ether when next it is edited". I take it the ISA Person class is not a candidate then?

Besides those two, I know of only foaf:Person as a good candidate. OpenCalais has a Person class, but I never hear people talk about OpenCalais's ontology.


Not related to the choice of Person class, but concerning this comment:

> From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> 
> After we'd 'finished' work on ISA Person core, there as a significant thread asking for it to be extended to include roles, which the People vocab begins to cover.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Sep/0042.html

Doesn't http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ define a Role class for foaf:Agent's? Seeing as foaf:Person subclasses foaf:Agent, I would consider the above-mentioned work to have already been done by the organization ontology.

Thanks,

--
James McKinney
@mckinneyjames

Received on Friday, 5 October 2012 07:08:10 UTC