Difference between revisions of "ORG CR transition"

From Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Status section and important changes to the document)
(Objections)
Line 143: Line 143:
 
== Objections ==
 
== Objections ==
  
No formal objections have been raised since Last Call.
+
None
 
+
A last minute comment from Renato Iannella has been received [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013May/0036.html] and responded to [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013May/0038.html], but is awaiting acceptance.
+
  
 
== Patent disclosures ==
 
== Patent disclosures ==

Revision as of 07:55, 9 May 2013

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.

ORG Timetable

Title

An organization ontology

Document Abstract

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.

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 URI

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

Diff with LC version: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/static-diff.html

Final URI

http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/CR-vocab-org-20130523/

Implementations

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.

Verifying Conformance

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.

Features

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.

Feature Terms
Core org:Organization org:FormalOrganization org:identifier org:classification org:purpose
Sites and addresses org:siteOf org:hasSite org:hasPrimarySite org:hasRegisteredSite org:siteAddress org:basedAt
Structure org:hasSubOrganization org:subOrganizationOf org:OrganizationalUnit org:unitOf org:hasUnit
Membership org:Role org:Membership org:role org:member org:organization org:memberDuring org:hasMember org:memberOf org:roleProperty org:headOf
Posts org:Post org:hasPost org:postIn org:holds org:heldBy
Organization change org:ChangeEvent org:changedBy org:originalOrganization org:resultedFrom org:resultingOrganization
Collaboration org:OrganizationalCollaboration

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
  • Collaboration

These are flagged as such because no current implementation that the working group is aware of yet makes use of these features.

Known implementations

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 [1] and accepted [2] our disposition of those comments.

Estimated publication date

2013-05-23

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 [3].

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.

Objections

None

Patent disclosures

None.

The Working Group's Patent Disclosure page is: http://www.w3.org/2004/01/pp-impl/47663/status