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


Thank you for carrying these questions forward and based on the
responses I'm beginning to realize why you wanted to keep
relationships in a non-normative description.

If the knowledge being conveyed is provenance-centric:  e.g. lineage
of scientific results are being described  org:Organization
rdfs:subClassOf prov:Organization might sense describing how the
organization acted or an agent acted on behalf of an organization.

On the other hand if the knowledge being conveyed is
organization-centric:  e.g. the history of a organization
prov:Organization could be argued be a rdfs:subClassOf
org:Organization depending on what is being conveyed.

Others might want to make assertions differently and dynamically
depending on the context of the question.

I am voting to support your original perspective on the matter by
keeping this non-normative.


On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 5:41 AM, Dave Reynolds
<> wrote:
> On 21/02/13 14:59, Ghislain Atemezing wrote:
>> Hi Dave,
>> Thanks for all the explanation!
>>> If there is some problem with that then by stating the weaker:
>>>      org:Organization rdfs:subClassOf prov:Organization .
>> +1 for having this weaker statement.
> As people will have seen, the suggestion from Paul is that in fact the
> generalization is the other way round:
>   prov:Organization rdfs:subClassOf org:Organization .
> I'm happy go along with this view.
> The question is then whether this weaker statement is appropriate to add to
> the ontology and spec at this stage or whether we should leave it to a
> future informative note (perhaps from a future WG).
> Any views on this?  Eric, since you originally noted this issue, any
> arguments either way?
> Dave

Received on Thursday, 28 February 2013 10:20:58 UTC