Difference between revisions of "ORG PR transition"

From Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Evidence that issues have been formally addressed)
(Formal objections)
Line 92: Line 92:
== Formal objections ==
== Formal objections ==
<i>If we have received any.</i>
None received.
== Dependencies on other groups ==
== Dependencies on other groups ==

Revision as of 14:15, 21 November 2013

Transition to Proposed Recommendation

This page is for editors to organize the documentation and evidence necessary to transition a document to Proposed 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.

Structure taken from W3C Technical Report Development Process.

ORG Timetable

ORG CR transition request - for reference


The Organization Ontology


Current CR version: http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-vocab-org-20130625/

Proposed PR version: https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/static-pr.html

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

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.

The namespace for all terms in this ontology is: http://www.w3.org/ns/org#

The vocabulary defined in this document is also available in these non-normative formats: RDF/XML and Turtle.

Status of the document

Copy from the document itself.

What is wanted here? Surely not a cut/paste of the current SOTD section, better to look at the actual published version.

Changes to the document

Substantive changes

There have been no substantive changes.

Minor changes

  • Updated the diagram in section 1 to a clearer, more complete version, thanks to João Paulo Almeida.
  • Added namespace and links to vocabulary file to the Abstract for ease of reference.
  • Duplicated the index of vocabulary terms earlier in the document for ease of reference.

Evidence of wide review

Agreed exit criteria were: Each term in ORG is demonstrated to have been used in two independent data sources, in conformance with the specification.

Given the nature of the vocabulary no automated conformance checking was possible. Instead a standardized set of queries was provided (ORG Validation Suite) and implemented as an online [validation tool]. However, in most cases implementers simply provided links to data or extension ontologies and WG members reviewed the use of ORG terms for appropriateness.

A summary of implementation reports is provided at ORG Implementations.

This shows 21 implementation reports, including reports of planned future usage as well as current implementation experience.

The ORG Implementations#Summary of term usage table shows the coverage of ORG terms by these reports. This shows a broad usage of terms and all terms bar 5 have at least two independent usage reports.

The remaining 5 terms have at least one usage each and at least one independent implementor indicating the term is relevant to their future planned use of ORG.

Given the nature of vocabulary development and usage we do not feel it is appropriate to remove the 5 low usage terms (necessitating a reset to WD status), their continued presence does no harm and each has received support from at least one group outside the WG.

At risk

Two aspects of the specification were marked At Risk.

Section 5.6 Historical Information with the class org:ChangeHistory and associated properties was marked At Risk. Since we have two implementations using at least one term from this group and three other implementation reports indicating relevance to future planned usage we seek to proceed with this section retained.

The use of OWL Time as a normative reference (for representation of time intervals) was marked At Risk and we sought feedback. One non-WG implementation report was received responding to this request [1] who asked that OWL Time be retained.

Evidence that the document satisfies group's requirements

The following is unchanged since CR:

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 issues have been formally addressed

No issues have been raised during the CR process, all previous issues were resolved before transition to CR.

Formal objections

None received.

Dependencies on other groups

Report any changes in dependencies with other groups — if we have any.

Record the group's decision to request advancement

This will be a link to the minutes of the working group meeting when we resolve to transition this document to PR.

Expected date of publication

This is probably the first Tuesday or Thursday after the working group resolves to transition to CR. Check with the chairs or staff contact for the group.