Re: How to express something is-located-at an org:Site

Hi Jakob,

I understand your use case and personally would not be adverse to adding
an aligned superproperty for org:hasSite.

The question is what one?

As you point out, org:Site is supposed to encompass non-physical sites.
This was to cater for organizations which use, for example, shared
virtual offices. Indeed I assume your my:digitallibrary is not a
physical location.

The trouble is that dct:Location is described as a "spatial region or
named place"; dbpedia:Place and http://schema.org/Place seem to be
definitely physical spatial locations. That seems to make them
unsuitable super classes for org:Site and presumably not suitable for
your digital library use case.

Can anyone with deeper understanding of DCT comment on whether this is
too narrow a view of dct:spatial/dct:Location - could a virtual office
or digital library be reasonably treated as a dct:Location?

Dave

P.S. Didn't cross post to public-gld-wg because I'm not allowed to :(

P.P.S. Apologies for any email noise from a previous failed send
attempt.


On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 14:49 +0100, Jakob Voss wrote: 
> Hi,
> 
> The Organization Ontology as described at
> 
> http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html
> 
> contains org:Site for location information, both physical and 
> non-physical. There are properties to connect organizations and sites 
> (org:hasSite / org:siteOf) and to connect People and sites 
> (org:basedAt). But these properties have no general super-property to 
> express that something (not necessarily an org:Organization or 
> foaf:Person) is located at an org:Site.
> 
> I found the following properties that may match:
> 
> 1. dcterms:spatial 
> (http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-spatial) has range 
> dcterms:Location 
> (http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#classes-Location) for "A 
> spatial region or named place"
> 
> 2. http://dbpedia.org/ontology/location has range
> http://dbpedia.org/ontology/Place for "Immobile things or locations"
> 
> 3. http://schema.org/location has range http://schema.org/Place which is 
> for "Entities that have a somewhat fixed, physical extension".
> 
> Each choice would make org:Site a subclass of or equivalent to another 
> class for places. I'd prefer not to create yet another property but use 
> an existing one, so could the Organization Ontology be aligned to one of 
> the three ontologies listed above?
> 
> Thanks
> Jakob
>

Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 17:56:42 UTC