If something is removed now, or not included now, or we think of some new concept – I presume it can be added later? I agree with Renato that the concept of "org" seems important. Also, our initial set of core use cases seem limited, especially from an enterprise (aka "org"?) point-of-view. I am presuming we can expand our set of possibilities in the future. -- Ann From: James M Snell [mailto:jasnell@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 7:58 PM To: Renato Iannella Cc: public-socialweb@w3.org Subject: Re: Actor Type: Org The reason it was removed was due to lack of justifiable use cases.... Specifically, none of the user stories adopted by the WG required an Organization object type being part of the core... Especially given that there are other vocabs available that cover Organization adequately. On Jun 29, 2015 7:18 PM, "Renato Iannella" <ri@semanticidentity.com<mailto:ri@semanticidentity.com>> wrote: Hi, I am trying to trace the ISSUE-35 [1] decision on removing some Actor Types. There seems to be a resolution email [2] but can’t seem to find the actual reasons behind the decisions (based on “justifiable use cases”). I am wondering why “Organisation” was removed in particular? There seems to be common use case for Orgs in Social Networks. (Eg W3C follows Tim on Twitter) Cheers... Renato Iannella Semantic Identity http://semanticidentity.com [1] http://www.w3.org/Social/track/issues/35 [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-socialweb/2015Apr/0034.html
Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2015 05:46:11 UTC