Difference between revisions of "ORG LC comments"

From Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(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 [http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ 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 then later extended to 2013-04-08 due to administrative omission in notifying w3c-chairs.
  
=== prov:wasDerivedFrom [Done] ===
+
{| class="datatable sortable" style="width: 100%"
 +
|+Disposition of comments
 +
|-
 +
! Commenter !! Message/Issue !! Summary !! Status !! GLD response !! Acknowledgement/Resolution
 +
|-
 +
|| PROV working group || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2012Nov/0003.html] tracked as [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/55 ISSUE-55] || Suggestion that prov:wasDerivedFrom should be explicitly or implicitly asserted to link a org:resultedFrom organization to the org:originalOrganization || This has been addressed by including a property chain axiom and providing an example and explanation of this relationship in the informative section  "Organization History". This would not invalidate previous implementations is not seen as requiring a new Last Call. || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html] || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Mar/0006.html]
 +
|-
 +
|| PROV working group || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2012Nov/0003.html] tracked as [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/56 ISSUE-56] || There are additional [http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/ 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 a comment to this effect in the informative section on "Organizational History".|| [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html] || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Mar/0006.html]
 +
|-
 +
|| PROV working group || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2012Nov/0003.html] tracked as [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/57 ISSUE-57] || 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. || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Feb/0000.html] || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Mar/0006.html]
 +
|-
 +
|| Dan Brickley || Off list tracked as [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/42 ISSUE-42] || The ORG vocabulary itself states that org:Organization is owl:equivalentClass foaf:Organization but this isn't reflected in the HTML description. || Corrected missing lines in the HTML description || Acknowledged || Acknowledged
 +
|-
 +
|| Richard Cyganiak (GLD member) || Raised and track as [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/45 ISSUE-45] || Align treatment of registered addresses between Org and RegOrg || Removed range constraint on org:siteAddress leaving it open but recommending vCard. Does not invalidate existing usage. || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0080.html] || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0092.html] and confirmed at [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-02-28 Telecon 2013-02028]
 +
|-
 +
|| João Paulo (GLD member) || Raised and tracked as [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/48 ISSUE-48] || State the domain and range of org:reportsTo as being foaf:Agent as opposed to unionOf(foaf:Agent, org:Post) || Invalidated by resolution of [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/51 ISSUE-51] || || N/A
 +
|-
 +
|| João Paulo (GLD member) || Raised and tracked as [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/49 ISSUE-49] || Informative text incorrectly states that reportsTo is Acyclic || Editorial change made. || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0040.html] || Closed at [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-02-21 Telecon 2013-02021]
 +
|-
 +
|| João Paulo (GLD member) || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Nov/0026.html] tracked as [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/50 ISSUE-50] || Is it valid that org:Organization is sub-class of foaf:Agent. || WG agreed to retain current relationship with foaf, no change. || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0040.html] || Closed at [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-02-21 Telecon 2013-02021]
 +
|-
 +
|| João Paulo (GLD member) || Raised and tracked as [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/51 ISSUE-51] || Is it correct for org:Post  to be a sub class of org:Organization  || Removed constraint requiring this and added editorial comment explaining that entities can still be both org:Post and org:Organization. This change does not invalidate previous implementations. || [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0040.html] || Closed at [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2013-02-21 Telecon 2013-02021]
 +
|}
  
From PROV feedback [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2012Nov/0003.html]
 
 
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: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Mar/0006.html]
 
 
=== Check PROV semantic constraints [Done] ===
 
 
From PROV feedback [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2012Nov/0003.html]
 
 
There are additional [http://www.w3.org/TR/2012/WD-prov-constraints-20120911/ 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: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Mar/0006.html]
 
 
=== Consider use of "invalidation" [Done] ===
 
 
From PROV feedback [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2012Nov/0003.html]
 
 
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: [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-comments/2013Mar/0006.html]
 
  
 
=== Request for more complete illustrative diagram ===
 
=== Request for more complete illustrative diagram ===
Line 38: Line 33:
  
 
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. [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Nov/0026.html]
 
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. [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2012Nov/0026.html]
 
=== 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 [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/42 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 [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/45 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  [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/48 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  [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/49 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  [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/50 Issue-50]
 
 
(consider birthday property as a test case)
 
 
WG agreed to retain current relationship [http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-gld-wg/2013Feb/0062.html]
 
 
=== Should org:Post be a sub class of org:Organzation [Done] ===
 
 
Comment from João Paulo.
 
 
Recorded as  [http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/51 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
 

Revision as of 14:37, 10 April 2013

Last Call Comments Disposition: ORG

Comments and draft responses for ORG Last Call ending 2012-11-25 then later extended to 2013-04-08 due to administrative omission in notifying w3c-chairs.

Disposition of comments
Commenter Message/Issue Summary Status GLD response Acknowledgement/Resolution
PROV working group [1] tracked as ISSUE-55 Suggestion that prov:wasDerivedFrom should be explicitly or implicitly asserted to link a org:resultedFrom organization to the org:originalOrganization This has been addressed by including a property chain axiom and providing an example and explanation of this relationship in the informative section "Organization History". This would not invalidate previous implementations is not seen as requiring a new Last Call. [2] [3]
PROV working group [4] tracked as ISSUE-56 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 a comment to this effect in the informative section on "Organizational History". [5] [6]
PROV working group [7] tracked as ISSUE-57 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. [8] [9]
Dan Brickley Off list tracked as ISSUE-42 The ORG vocabulary itself states that org:Organization is owl:equivalentClass foaf:Organization but this isn't reflected in the HTML description. Corrected missing lines in the HTML description Acknowledged Acknowledged
Richard Cyganiak (GLD member) Raised and track as ISSUE-45 Align treatment of registered addresses between Org and RegOrg Removed range constraint on org:siteAddress leaving it open but recommending vCard. Does not invalidate existing usage. [10] [11] and confirmed at Telecon 2013-02028
João Paulo (GLD member) Raised and tracked as ISSUE-48 State the domain and range of org:reportsTo as being foaf:Agent as opposed to unionOf(foaf:Agent, org:Post) Invalidated by resolution of ISSUE-51 N/A
João Paulo (GLD member) Raised and tracked as ISSUE-49 Informative text incorrectly states that reportsTo is Acyclic Editorial change made. [12] Closed at Telecon 2013-02021
João Paulo (GLD member) [13] tracked as ISSUE-50 Is it valid that org:Organization is sub-class of foaf:Agent. WG agreed to retain current relationship with foaf, no change. [14] Closed at Telecon 2013-02021
João Paulo (GLD member) Raised and tracked as ISSUE-51 Is it correct for org:Post to be a sub class of org:Organization Removed constraint requiring this and added editorial comment explaining that entities can still be both org:Post and org:Organization. This change does not invalidate previous implementations. [15] Closed at Telecon 2013-02021


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. [16]