Re: ISSUE-58 (prov:Organization): Relate org:Organization to prov:Organization [Organization Ontology]

Hi Ghislain,

On 21/02/13 13:19, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
> Hi Dave,
> Please help me to understand this issue..I don't really get the point.

Eric can explain why he raised it but I guess I can explain why I agreed 
enough to put it on the issue list.

>> As raised by Eric
>> inhttp://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0045.html
>> PROV-O includes a prov:Organization.
>>
>> Should ORG now declare and explicit relationship between
>> org:Organization and prov:Organization?
>
> Org makes explicit relationship with foaf as here:
> (1) [[ org:Organization a owl:Class, rdfs:Class;
>      rdfs:subClassOf  foaf:Agent;
>      owl:equivalentClass foaf:Organization;
>      rdfs:label "Organization"@en;
>
>    ]]
>
> While in PROV-O, there is no explicit relationship with
> foaf:Organization nor foaf:Agent
>
> (2) [[
>    prov:Organization
>      a owl:Class ;
>      rdfs:isDefinedBy <http://www.w3.org/ns/prov#> ;
>      rdfs:label "Organization" ;
>      rdfs:subClassOf prov:Agent ;
>     ]]
>
> Looking at the spec, they do not mention such relationship.
> So, why do ORG be so explicit with PROV-O?

As an outsider I would see W3C publishing two ontologies at overlapping 
times, both of which have a class for Organization and would wonder how 
they relate.

Given that in ORG we have gone out of our way to make sure it fits into 
the broader landscape of vocabularies then it would be in keeping for at 
lest ORG to include a statement of the relationship.

You could argue that since ORG has existed for sometime and has been in 
process at W3C for a while then PROV-O could have avoided minting a new 
term of its own or at least stated the relationship themselves. It is 
not my place to understand or explain why they did not do that.

> Do PROV-O also consider having explicit relationship with for e.g.
> foaf:Organization.

I can't answer that.

>> Should that be owl:equivalentClass or just rdfs:subClassOf?
>
> Sorry if I don't understand this issue.

The obvious thing to state would be that org:Organization and 
prov:Organization are the same class. From the verbal descriptions that 
would seem to be the case.

That would obviously also imply that if you commit to both ORG and 
PROV-O at the same time, that you also commit to prov:Organization and 
foaf:Organization being the same class. PROV-O might or might not be 
happy with that. The fact that they say nothing about the relationship 
with foaf at the moment may be as much a stylistic thing as deliberate 
non-statement.

If there is some problem with that then by stating the weaker:

     org:Organization rdfs:subClassOf prov:Organization .

we would be saying that it is fine to use an org:Organization whenever 
you want something to play the role of a prov:Organization. That weaker 
statement is then not really saying anything about prov:Organization 
itself and so is something we would be free to make on our own.

Does that help?

I really don't think this is a big issue either way. We just ping 
PROV-O, if they agree it's an equivalence then done. If not we put in 
the sub class of relation and we are done unless someone in GLD objects 
to even that.

Cheers,
Dave

Received on Thursday, 21 February 2013 13:53:00 UTC