Re: [ORG] Disposition of issues

Dear Dave,

My comments to some of the issues follow inline. You and James have done a
great job summarizing all this, and I think we're nearly there...

>Following on from last week's call, and the email discussion with James,
>I have updated ORG to deal with most of the Last Call feedback and open

>## ISSUE-50 (break linkage with foaf:Organization and foaf:Agent)
>No change.
>As previously stated, and as reinforced by James, I see the linkage to
>foaf as non-problematic. There is considerable usage of foaf, and use of
>foaf:Organization has been non-problematic in practice. I would strongly
>prefer to retain the current relationship.

I will not object to keeping this relationship, so I think ISSUE-50 can be
closed. However, there are implications that should be clear to users of
the ORG ontology:  foaf:gender (which formally is a property of
org:Organization because it specializes foaf:Agent) should be avoided by
users of the ORG ontology for org:Organization. Would it deserve a note?

>## ISSUE-51 (should org:Post be a sub class of org:Organization)
>No change.
>As previously stated, this is motivated by existing usage of ORG and is
>not problematic for ORG applications which do not wish to exploit this.

>I would like to close ISSUE-50 and ISSUE-51 if Joćo Paulo will accept
>this outcome.

I still believe org:Post should not be a subclass of org:Organization.

If one is interested in Posts that can be "held by multiple people" than
one could simply exploit the fact that an instance of org:Organization is
an instance of foaf:Agent and as such may hold posts, i.e., a post may be
held by an organization, which would address what Bart has discussed in:

Are there scenarios which clearly require Post to be a specialization
Organization? If not, then making Post a subclass of Organization adds a
lot to Post: Posts may hold other Posts, Agents may be Members of Posts
(in addition to possibly holding posts), Posts may be subOrganizations of
other Posts, Posts may be subOrganizations of Organizations, Organizations
may be subOrganizations of Posts, Posts may have OrganizationalUnits. My
call is that this is overly "exuberant", and will likely lead to semantic
interoperability problems.

(With respect to the argument that this would not be  problematic for ORG
applications which do not wish to exploit this, I would add a more nuanced
view: if this is included in the ontology, then consumers of information
produced using the ORG ontology may be exposed to all these relations I
mention above.)

About issue 48, this depends on ISSUE-51:

>## ISSUE-48 (domain/range of org:reportsTo)
>I have removed the redundant unionOf assertion, as suggested by Joćo
>Paulo, and added a comment pointing out that since org:Post is a sub
>class of foaf:Agent it remains possible to have org:Post as the subject
>or object of an org:reportsTo.

If org:Post is no longer a subclass of org:Organization, than ISSUE-48 can
be closed as you propose. Otherwise, just rollback.

>## ISSUE-49 (incorrect mention that reportsTo is acyclic)
>Removed the comment.

Great. This addresses issue 49 IMO.

Unrelated to these issues, but related to a previous discussion (that was
not captured in the issue tracker and that was not finalized), I think
that the document should specify whether the properties:
org:member (range Membership, domain foaf:Agent)
org:organization (range Membership, domain Organization)
org:role (range Membership, domain Role)
Are functional properties. In my opinion org:member and org:organization
are functional. 

I would also like to see the more complete diagram that we have drawn
included (in a non-normative part of the document, see,
because I believe it would be useful for users to grasp the ontology. Once
the issues have been addressed, we can produced an updated diagram. (This
is an editorial issue only.)

Joćo Paulo

Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2013 18:55:07 UTC