Re: Preliminary Feedback on GLD ORG

Dave,

My responses using -->

Thanks,

Eric


> 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.
>

--> I'll take a shot at the example, how would the GLD group feel
about setting up an examples section on the GLD web site.  This was
done on the W3C PROV website and serves as a nice resource for users
of their products.

>> 5.6 Historical information
>>
>> 5.6.1 Class: ChangeEvent
>>

--> I was thinking about this a bit further, and I agree there is
nothing stopping a user putting in a future date value for start
date/end date.

>> 2.4 Organizational History (non-normative)

>
> OPMV has essentially been superseded by PROV-O, ORG used to link to OMPV,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 ontology.

--> -1.  OPMV is among many provenance vocabularies will continue to
exist even after W3C PROV simply because many services, tools, and
APIs in production today.    Because the fact that  other non-W3C
provenance vocabularies aren't mentioned here I suggest just
mentioning the W3C PROV.


>
> It is not for us to state any normative relationship between PROV-O and
> OPMV.

--> Sorry I didn't mean to imply this, I was just trying to depict
(although poorly done) potential relationships between
(ORG/OPMV) and (ORG/PROV)


On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Dave Reynolds
<dave.e.reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
>
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>> 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 ontology.
>
> 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. 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.
>
>
> 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 schema.org which addresses that.
>
> Dave
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2013 05:35:12 UTC