Re: ORG: proposed Last Call draft for review

Hi James,

On 12/10/12 04:28, James McKinney wrote:
> Returning to the original subject of this thread, here are a few small things I noticed in 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.

Thanks. I'll look at the editorial changes which I get a chance, 
hopefully before Thursday.

Responses to the non-editorial questions in line ...

> Is the diagram meant to include all classes and properties?

No. A complete diagram gets to be too messy to be useful. This is 
intended to guide people in understanding and using the main parts of of 
the ontology.

> 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.

True. Mostly those are covered in the style note where it says "omitting 
attribute-like relations" - that doesn't really explain org:basedAt but 
whatever :)

> "Indicates a VCard (using the vocabulary)"
> Use the "[VCARD]" notation.
> Why do basedAt and location have a domain of foaf:Person? We only ever use foaf:Agent everywhere else.

The thinking there was that only people have physical locations like 
that. Non-person-agents are things like committees which don't have a 

That could be generalized without harm since it wouldn't break any 
deployed usage if people feel that's a limitation that should be addressed.

> 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).

It was included because one of the use cases was to represent typical 
company organization charts and those often include an internal location 
within a building such as a room number. For example, in HP there was 
the notion of a "mailstop" which was essentially a coordinate for a 
cubicle within a big building given by nearest pillar on a square grid. 
  However, that's not part of the delivery address and so doesn't fit on 
the vCard, its purely internal to help you physically find the person.

I don't think it is *needed* in any strong sense and certainly isn't a 
big feature, which is why it doesn't have any further discussion. 
However, it does no harm and can be useful for at least some situations.

> 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?

That's not a problem but a requirement :)

For example an org:OrganizationalCollaboration is an organization whose 
members are other organizations.

Within UK government there are cases where a Post that you think of as 
being held by one person is in fact held by a committee or other 
collective which act as if they were one agent. So in that case you need 
the committee to appear as a member of the Organization in which the 
Post exists.


Received on Friday, 12 October 2012 09:19:37 UTC