Preliminary Feedback on GLD ORG

Hi Dave and team,

I've taken a first pass at the organization ontology and thought I'd
share some preliminary feedback.

Cheers,

Eric Stephan


General comments:

The Org Ontology is extremely easy to read and reference.    It has a
sense of being very mature, useful and easy to implement.    The
ontology appears to be well documented.

1.1 Example

The government example looks sound and gives the reader a clear
understanding about how org can be used.  To show relevance in the
virtual world and to pardon the expression “eating out own dog food”
should we also offer another example or examples in the appendix that
shows how our GLD working group  is represented as a W3C organization?

2.4 Organizational History (non-normative)

Could this section be more formalized?  It seems like there is a
tremendous opportunity to discuss discrete relationships between OPMV
and PROV-O. A case in point is the:
      * Org:Organization, Prov:Organization, OPMV:Agent, are they
equivalent or the same-as?
      Also consider:
      * Foaf:Agent, Prov:Agent, OPMV:Agent

Other than provenance are there other relationships that could be addressed?

5.4 Location

5.4.1 Class: Site

A virtual location could be an IRI(s) for a source forge or google project.


5.6 Historical information

5.6.1 Class: ChangeEvent

Constraining “Change Event” to the historical information seems to
limiting. http://www.w3.org/2006/time# interval may be more
appropriate for certain events.  For instance, have future events been
considered?    An example is the expected finish date of the W3C GLD
working group or the planned start date of another work group.

Received on Sunday, 17 February 2013 23:12:46 UTC