ORG LC comments

From Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group Wiki
Revision as of 19:48, 11 April 2013 by Dreynold2 (Talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

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
Leigh Dodds [1] Endorsement and example of usage. Acknowledged. [2] N/A
Bill Roberts [3] Endorsement. Side comment on complexities of vCard. Responded that the WG has relaxed vCard use to recommendation rather than requirement. [4] [5]
PROV working group [6] 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. [7] [8]
PROV working group [9] 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". [10] [11]
PROV working group [12] 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. [13] [14]
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. [15] [16] 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. [17] Closed at Telecon 2013-02021
João Paulo (GLD member) [18] 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. [19] 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. [20] Closed at Telecon 2013-02021


We have had three external comments. Two simply endorsing it, one pointing out an editorial omission now fixed.

We had valuable feedback from the PROV working group which has been addressed and acknowledged as acceptable.

In addition WG members raised some issues post-Last Call but not on the comments list. The resulting issues have all been closed as tracked above.

Some small changes were made to the ontology in response to these issues. However, they just involved the relaxation of two constraints (range of org:siteAddress, sub class restriction on org:Post) and the addition of one property call axiom (to enable deduction of prov:wasDerivedFrom). These are not seen as invalidating implementations of Last Call and so do not require a further Last Call.

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. [21]

Last update on this question: [22]