Re: Preliminary Feedback on GLD ORG

Hi Eric,

On 17/02/13 23:12, Eric Stephan wrote:
> Hi Dave and team,
> I've taken a first pass at the organization ontology and thought I'd
> share some preliminary feedback.


> 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?

I've mixed feelings on that. I wouldn't want to accidentally convey an 
impression of inward focus.

If someone wanted to develop such an example we could put it up on the 
GLD web site and reference it as part of the implementation report but 
not necessarily put it in the spec document.

> 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

You've lost me here.

This is a non-normative section, the formalization is in the subClassOf 
and subPropertyOf relations given in the normative ontology section 
(plus the chain axiom).

OPMV has essentially been superseded by PROV-O, ORG used to link to 
OMPV, now it links to PROV-O and there's no OPMV terms mentioned in the 

It is not for us to state any normative relationship between PROV-O and 
OPMV. We only mention that in this non-normative section in order to 
informally reassure existing ORG users that the change was harmless.

Similarly, while I hope that prov:Agent is equivalent class of 
foaf:Agent it is not for us to state that. I personally wish PROV would 
state that, rather than leave it implied by examples, or better still 
just have used foaf:Person etc in the first place.

Regarding org:Organization/prov:Organization (!) then that's a good 
point. I assume that prov:Organization is equivalent to org:Organization 
but you are right that ought to be stated if true, needs to be validate 
that with the PROV WG.

I'll take an action to do that.

> 5.4 Location
> 5.4.1 Class: Site
> A virtual location could be an IRI(s) for a source forge or google project.

True, could point that out.

> 5.6 Historical information
> 5.6.1 Class: ChangeEvent
> Constraining “Change Event” to the historical information seems to
> limiting. 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.

That's not covered by either ORG or PROV-O. In principle you could 
certainly have a change event that hadn't happened yet. If PROV-O made 
use of the Time ontology that you could use that to talk about ordering 
of time intervals. However, none of them provide any notion of "expected 
date". Sounds like something for a future vocabularies working group 
unless there's something in which addresses that.


Received on Monday, 18 February 2013 08:41:08 UTC