RE: Actor Type: Org

Absolutely it can be added back.
On Jun 29, 2015 10:45 PM, "Bassetti, Ann" <ann.bassetti@boeing.com> wrote:

>  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>
> 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
>
>
>
>