Re: ORG: proposed Last Call draft for review

I've just discovered that I can clone the draft with Mercurial, so if you prefer that I attach my changes as a patch, let me know. Whatever the case, I do still have questions in addition to my edits.

On 2012-10-11, at 11:28 PM, James McKinney wrote:

> Returning to the original subject of this thread, here are a few small things I noticed in http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html I don't know if there's a better way for me to report these proposed changes. If there is, please point me in the right direction. Lots of small fixes and a few bigger questions.
> 
> 
> 1. Overview of ontology
> 
> "This ontology is designed to enable publication of information on organizations and organizational structure"
> "structure" should be plural
> 
> "The ontology gives terms to support representation of"
> Either make "representation" plural or add "the" before "representation"
> 
> "people reporting structure within an organization"
> Either remove "people" or otherwise change this fragment to make sense
> 
> We should be consistent in the spelling of "subclass". Sometimes there is a hyphen, ie "sub-class"
> 
> The diagram has "holdsPost" but the property is just "holds". There is also the typo "resultingOrganzation"
> 
> Is the diagram meant to include all classes and properties? It is missing transitiveSubOrganizationOf, linkedTo, hasMember, memberDuring, roleProperty, remuneration, reportsTo (on Post)
> 
> 
> 2. Description and commentary
> 
> We use a compact URI for the first time here, but we only defined "org:" in section 4.
> 
> I don't understand why "Corporation, Charity, Government or Church" are capitalized. They are not classes.
> 
> "a complete, legally recognized, business"
> Remove comma after "recognized". I also don't know the meaning of a "complete business" so maybe remove "complete," as well.
> 
> "specializations of the generic sub-organization links"
> add period after "links"
> 
> "notions of Partnership, Limited Company (public, private) etc"
> Since we aren't trying to be exhaustive, I find the parenthesis "(public, private)" disrupts the flow, and it better off being removed.
> 
> "Educational, Manufacturing, LegalService"
> I'm not sure why LegalService is camel case here, but "Limited Company" in the preceding sentence gets a space. In any case, I think they ought to be lowercase, to avoid confusing readers into thinking that this ontology defines these classes/concepts/etc
> 
> "Which of these mechanisms to use depends on situation."
> Add "the" before "situation"
> 
> "only Charities have CharityNumbers so it would be better to represent a Charity as a subClassOf org:FormalOrganization"
> The class name would be "Charity" not "Charities", and the property would be "charityNumber", so it really makes sense here to just use plain-old lowercase English, including "subclass of".
> 
> "is org:memberOf of an organization"
> Shouldn't we remove "of"?
> 
> "To represent specific roles that the person plays then"
> Replace "then" with a comma. There is no logical entailment or time sequence here, so "then" is confusing.
> 
> "this is supported by the org:Role class"
> This is a run-on sentence. Make it a new sentence.
> 
> Should we be consistent and just use one of "n-ary relationship" or "n-ary relation" everywhere?
> 
> "So a org:Post can exist without someone holding that post."
> This is redundant with the immediately preceding paragraph.
> 
> "Relationship between Posts and Membership"
> Make both either plural or singular.
> 
> "In many cases only one of Posts and Memberships is needed to model the situation and ORG profiles may specify that use of one of these is preferred"
> Have it read "In many situations only one of Post or Membership is needed, and ORG profiles may specify that use of one of the two is preferred"
> I actually find this paragraph somewhat redundant with the preceding sections. The next sentence doesn't explain clearly when you should use Post. eg "In cases where the structure of the organization is to be given" -- isn't that all cases if you're using this ontology?
> 
> "in the form of two more entailment rules"
> "two more"? What are the original entailment rules to which these "more" are added? If there are none, remove "more".
> 
> "ORG represents information on locations at which organizations exist through the notion an org:Site, which can be linked to an organization via org:siteOf and org:hasSite. We can distinguish primary sites (org:hasPrimarySite) and provide a specialization of that (org:hasRegisteredSite) indicate a legally registered site for the organization."
> Make it "org:Site represents locations at which organizations exist. The relations org:siteOf and org:hasSite establish links between a org:Site and an organization. We distinguish a primary site org:hasPrimarySite to indicate the default means by which an organization can be contacted, and a registered site org:hasRegisteredSite to indicate a legally registered site for the organization."
> 
> 
> 5. Ontology Reference
> 
> "Organizations or Organizational Units"
> Remove space in "Organizational Units"
> 
> "an org:Role"
> We use "a org:Post", "a org:Site", etc so it should be "a org:Role"
> 
> In hasUnit and unitOf, I find it confusing to use FormalOrganization in the example, when the domain and range, respectively, are defined as being Organization. Note that the diagram in section 1 shows hasUnit and unitOf as being properties of FormalOrganization. Which is it? Is the domain/range Organization or FormalOrganization?
> 
> FYI, there is no inverse for org:organization, org:role or org:basedAt. Other similar properties have inverses. I'm not a fan of inverse relations, just pointing it out.
> 
> "Indicates a VCard (using the http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/ vocabulary)"
> Use the "[VCARD]" notation.
> 
> Why do basedAt and location have a domain of foaf:Person? We only ever use foaf:Agent everywhere else.
> 
> I'm a little confused by the org:location property. Why do we need it? It's only mentioned once in the document (for its definition).
> 
> 
> B. Acknowledgements
> 
> "Government Linked Data Working group"
> "Group" should be capitalized
> 
> 
> General thought: Is it a problem that org:Organization subclasses foaf:Agent? Doesn't this mean that an organization (which is a foaf:Agent) can be a member of an organization?
> 
> 
> James
>

Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 03:36:49 UTC