Re: [ORG] Disposition of issues

Thanks Dave, once again, you've set the bar high!  Really appreciate the effort.

Bernadette


On Feb 16, 2013, at 11:38 AM, Dave Reynolds <Dave.e.Reynolds@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 issues.
> 
> The updated Editor's Draft is at [1].
> 
> ## ISSUE-42 (foaf:Organization relationship)
> 
> Added this assertion to the specification document - as danbri pointed out it was already in the ontology itself.
> 
> ## ISSUE-45 (treatment of site addresses)
> 
> As discussed with James I have removed the range constraint on org:siteAddress [2] but left a comment that use of a well known address encoding such as vCard is encouraged.
> 
> ## ISSUE-48 (domain/range of org:reportsTo)
> 
> I have removed the redundant unionOf assertion, as suggested by João 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.
> 
> ## ISSUE-49 (incorrect mention that reportsTo is acyclic)
> 
> Removed the comment.
> 
> ## 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.
> 
> ## 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.
> 
> ## ISSUE-55 (PROV WG comment - prov:wasDerivedFrom)
> 
> As noted in the discussion with James, the best approach seems to be to adopt the property chain axiom suggestion from PROV WG. I've added this to the ontology, to the normative part of the specification and have added an explanation and example in the informative section [4].
> 
> ## ISSUE-56 (PROV WG comment - semantic constraints)
> 
> There seems to be no conflict between ORG's usage of PROV-O terms and the semantic constraints. Anyone using additional PROV-O terms, such as to describe the time of a change event, ought to take those constraints into account but that's just part of using PROV-O terms. I've added an informative reference to this in [4].
> 
> ## ISSUE-57 (PROV WG comment - invalidation vocabulary)
> 
> No change.
> 
> An application of ORG would be free to use additional relevant PROV-O terms such as the invalidation terms but I see no need to change ORG or the write up to further facilitate that.
> 
> ## ACTION-65 (update rdfs:seeAlso link in the ontology)
> 
> Done
> 
> ## Summary
> 
> With these changes I believe we can close ISSUE-42, ISSUE-48, ISSUE-49 and ACTION-65.
> 
> We can close ISSUE-45 if Richard and Phil are happy with this outcome.
> 
> I would like to close ISSUE-50 and ISSUE-51 if João Paulo will accept this outcome.
> 
> For the PROV feedback (ISSUE-55, ISSUE-56, ISSUE-57) we need to agree that we are happy with change (ISSUE-55), provide a formal response to PROV WG and check they are are content. I'll draft the response, which will need WG approval to send off.
> 
> Can we include closing of these issues on next week's agenda?
> 
> Dave
> 
> [1] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html
> [2] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#org:siteAddress
> [3] https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#org:reportsTo
> [4]
> https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#organizational_history
>