Difference between revisions of "ORG CR transition"
(→Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements)
|Line 32:||Line 32:|
== Current URI ==
== Current URI ==
== Final URI ==
== Final URI ==
Revision as of 13:46, 6 May 2013
- 1 Transition to CR
- 1.1 Title
- 1.2 Document Abstract
- 1.3 Status section and important changes to the document
- 1.4 Current URI
- 1.5 Final URI
- 1.6 Implementations
- 1.7 Evidence that dependencies with other groups met (or not)
- 1.8 Estimated publication date
- 1.9 Record of the Working Group's decision to request the Transition
- 1.10 Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements
- 1.11 Evidence that the document has received wide review
- 1.12 Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
- 1.13 Objections
- 1.14 Patent disclosures
Transition to CR
This page is to organize the documentation and evidence necessary to transition a document to Candidate Recommendation. The page's content will be used for the transition request and to inform the transition meeting for that document.
This is a working page for the Government Linked Data working group. It may be subject to change/revision at any time.
An organization ontology
This document describes a core ontology for organizational structures, aimed at supporting linked data publishing of organizational information across a number of domains. It is designed to allow domain-specific extensions to add classification of organizations and roles, as well as extensions to support neighbouring information such as organizational activities.
Status section and important changes to the document
The changes made are documented at https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#change-history and listed below for convenience.
- Added explicit declarations that org:member and org:organization are functional properties. This is a clarification rather than an intended change of semantics.
- Removed assertion that org:Post is a sub class of org:Organization, adding an informative note that ORG applications are still free to declare entities as being instances of both classes.
- Added property chain axiom for prov:wasDerivedFrom.
- Removed the range constraint on org:siteAddress to allow other encodings than VCard to be used.
- Added a statement that org:Organization is equivalent to the foaf:Organization class. This statement was present in the ontology itself at the time of last call but not sufficiently clear in this document.
- Removed informative comment that the org:reportsTo graph is acyclic, this is not necessarily the case.
Do we need to generate a viewable diff? If so are there tools for that?
The WG examined these changes and determined that they are not substantive (mostly clarifications), do not invalidate any implementations that might have been created in accordance with the Last Call version and so do not warrant another Last Call period. [resolution]
Current published version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-vocab-org-20121023/
Proposed CR version: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/static-cr.html
Is this what this section means?
CR Exit criteria
The working group intends to submit this document for consideration as a W3C Proposed Recommendation after having met the following criteria:
- Each feature of ORG is demonstrated to have been used in two independent data sources, in conformance with the specification.
- For each feature, at least one conforming data sample has been made available to the Working Group to allow verification.
To test conformance of a data source with the ORG specification the working group has defined a verification suite. This comprises a set of SPARQL queries which, for each feature of the vocabulary, will extract the relevant information represented by that feature. This is not an automated test suite, human interpretation is required to determine if the query results are as expected for the source data. See ORG Validation Suite.
The Working Group hopes to provide an on-line tool to ease use of this verification suite.
An implementation report will comprise:
- Outline description of the implementation.
- A list of features implemented.
- A declaration that for each implemented feature the results of the validation tests are appropriate.
- Optionally, sample data or a public endpoint from which a sample of the data may be obtained.
The Working Group MAY seek to verify conformance of implementation samples in order to check conformance aspects which cannot be tested through the verification suite. Specifically that the data source does not use terms from other vocabularies instead of ones defined in ORG that could reasonably be used.
Individual implementation reports are not required for each vocabulary term. In order to reduce the burden for reporting and tracking implementations we group the vocabulary terms into logical features.
|Sites and addresses|| |
|Organization change|| |
A valid use of a feature is not required to explicitly reference every individual term listed within that feature.
At risk features
The following features are At Risk.
- Organization change
These are flagged as such because no current implementation that the working group is aware of yet makes use of these features.
A list of known implementations at present is maintained at ORG Implementations.
Evidence that dependencies with other groups met (or not)
The ORG ontology references the PROV-O ontology (introduces a subclass of prov:Activity, recommends use of four associated properties). The PROV working group provided a Last Call review of ORG  and accepted  our disposition of those comments.
Estimated publication date
Record of the Working Group's decision to request the Transition
Link to the working group meeting minutes or email where the resolution took place.
Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements
The Working Group's charter calls for development of a standardized vocabulary for organizational structures:
- Organizational Structures. Such as the Epimorphics organization ontology (see also its requirements).
The document is based directly on that prior publication and so directly addresses that requirement.
Evidence that the document has received wide review
The document is closely based on one previously released in 2010 which received wide review on the W3C egov mailing list .
The Last Call document received feedback from 4 commenters external to the WG, see ORG LC comments.
The number of known implementations that already exist suggest that is has received broader review and adoption than just those four commenters.
Evidence that issues have been formally addressed
Summary and detailed links on disposition of issues are given on ORG LC comments.
No objections have been raised since Last Call.
The Working Group's Patent Disclosure page is: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/47663/status