Difference between revisions of "ORG LC comments"

From Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Domain/range of org:reportsTo [Done])
(Added link to the ORG last call document)
Line 1: Line 1:
 
== Last Call Comments Disposition: ORG ==
 
== Last Call Comments Disposition: ORG ==
  
Comments and draft responses for ORG Last Call ending 2012-11-25
+
Comments and draft responses for [http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ ORG] Last Call ending 2012-11-25
  
 
=== prov:wasDerivedFrom [Done] ===
 
=== prov:wasDerivedFrom [Done] ===

Revision as of 15:48, 28 March 2013

Last Call Comments Disposition: ORG

Comments and draft responses for ORG Last Call ending 2012-11-25

prov:wasDerivedFrom [Done]

From PROV feedback [1]

Suggestion that prov:wasDerivedFrom should be explicitly or implicitly asserted to link a the org:resultedFrom organization to the org:originalOrganization

This has been addressed by including a property chain axiom, as suggested in the feedback and providing an example and explanation of this relationship in the informative section "Organization History".

PROV acceptance of response: [2]

Check PROV semantic constraints [Done]

From PROV feedback [3]

There are additional semantic constraints on use of PROV that should be checked before proceeding with its use in ORG.

We have examined these constraints and see no implication for the use of ORG terms themselves. An application which combines ORG with use of PROV-O terms (e.g. for the time of occurrence of event) should take the PROV-CONSTRAINTS into account. We have added an comment this effect in the informative section on "Organizational History".

PROV acceptance of response: [4]

Consider use of "invalidation" [Done]

From PROV feedback [5]

Suggestion to use PROV invalidation vocabulary to state when a changed organization ceases to exist.

An application of ORG is indeed free to use further terms from the PROV vocabulary such as those on invalidation. This is already possible with no change to ORG being required.

PROV acceptance of response: [6]

Request for more complete illustrative diagram

The non-normative pictorial representation of the vocabulary is not complete, and clearly stated as such in the LC document.

Comment from João Paulo requesting that the relation between org:Organization and foaf:Agent and between org:Post and org:Organization should be made explicit. [7]

Relationship to foaf:Organization [Done]

Off list comment from Dan Brickley.

The ORG vocabulary itself states that org:Organization is owl:equivalentClass foaf:Organization but this isn't reflected in the HTML description.

Recorded as Issue-42

This edit has been made to the current editor's draft and the issue can be marked as closed.

Align treatment of registered addresses with RegOrg [Done]

Comment from Richard Cyganiak recorded as Issue-45

Proposed that the range constraint on org:siteAddress be removed and vCard simply referenced as an example.

This change has been made to the current editor's draft.

Domain/range of org:reportsTo [Done]

Comment from João Paulo.

State the domain and range of org:reportsTo as being foaf:Agent as opposed to unionOf(foaf:Agent, org:Post) and add clarifying text pointing out that someone can reportTo an org:Post. This is not a change in semantics, just a clarification.

Recorded as Issue-48

Edit has been made and accepted.

org:reportsTo is not acyclic [Done]

Comment from João Paulo.

There is currently a comment in informative text mentioning reportsTo as acyclic that should be removed or clarified. This would be a minor change, not affecting semantics.

Recorded as Issue-49

The offending informative comment has been removed and this issue can now be closed.

Should org:Organization be sub-class of foaf:Agent [No change]

Comment from João Paulo.

Recorded as Issue-50

(consider birthday property as a test case)

WG agreed to retain current relationship [8]

Should org:Post be a sub class of org:Organzation [Done]

Comment from João Paulo.

Recorded as Issue-51

Subclass relationship removed with comment in text to point out that applications can still create resources which are both org:Post and org:Organization