Re: Open ORG issues

Hi James,

On 14/02/13 15:57, James McKinney wrote:
> Looking through the open issues, it seems to me that we can close them all (except possibly one) easily.

I hope so. I do think we are just about there on ORG. The challenge is 
to get agreement on the few remaining non-trivial ones.

There are also the formal comments from PROV that need addressing. They 
don't seem to have made it to the Issues tracker. They are recorded on 
the dispositions page (which is what I was expecting to eventually use 
for any transition meeting) but probably should also go in the tracker.

> "Align treatment of registered addresses between Org and RegOrg"
> This is probably the biggest open issue. Can we just remove the range on org:siteAddress, given that there are no really good address ontologies that fulfill all requirements/use cases?

We do need a range-free version. The question is whether to have a 
sub-property of that which retains the vcard restriction and, if so, 
which of those to create a new name for.

> "Should org:Organization be sub-class of foaf:Agent (consider birthday property as a test case) ... foaf:Agent has properties birthday, gender, ... are these meaningful to org:Organization and org:Post?"
> Per earlier mailing list discussion, we can trust implementers not to give organizations genders... We aren't going to "fix" other vocabularies like FOAF, and there are advantages to linking to FOAF. I think the pros outweigh the cons.


Joćo Paulo are you prepared to accept this?

> "Should org:Post be a sub class of org:Organzation"
> This has been described in earlier mailing list messages as a requirement that fulfills a use case that came up in the original development of ORG by Epimorphics. If Post doesn't subclass Organization, we'd need to find an alternative to fulfill the use case. The only alternative I can think of is to not have Post subclass anything.

As already argued on the mail list that relationship was motivated by a 
clear use case (representing UK government structures, work done by Jeni 
Tennison) and I don't agree that the relationship is problematic.

Joćo Paulo are you prepared to accept this?

[If not then indeed removing the restriction would be the alternative 
but that might mean that we couldn't use the existing Cabinet Office 
usage of Org as evidence for that part of the design.]

> In terms of evidence for ORG, if everything goes to plan, Open North, Participatory Politics Foundation, mySociety and Sunlight Foundation will use ORG terms in their software projects. has the current working draft of the schema we will all be adopting. is a Ruby on Rails engine that implements that schema.

Indeed, and that's great.


Received on Thursday, 14 February 2013 16:41:43 UTC