- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2012 10:41:05 +0100
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: Government Linked Data Working Group <public-gld-wg@w3.org>
On 25 Oct 2012, at 09:57, Phil Archer wrote: > And so I think we're heading for option b which is fine. +1 > org:hasRegisteredSite covers what we need AFAICS. But where the address is given in non-vCard format it needs to use something other than org:siteAddress. Or the range of org:siteAddress needs to be broadened. Maybe introduce org:Address as a superclass of vCard, saying that it is there for future-proofing Org, and that other address representations that have a defined mapping to vCard are fine too? I guess the fact that ISO is on this and might come out with something better / more interoperable than vCard creates a good case for not tying Org to vCard too closely. Best, Richard > > This perhaps creates a problem of perception, however false, of "Org uses vCard therefore using Org implies I must use vCard" so I think we should say explicitly somewhere that other address serialisations are acceptable. > > Perhaps section 2.3 of ORG, that currently says: > > "The ontology provides org:siteAddress to define the address of a site using the vCard [ VCARD ] vocabulary." > > could be extended to say: > > "The ontology provides org:siteAddress to define the address of a site using the vCard [ VCARD ] vocabulary. Serializations of addresses other than vCard may be used but should be linked using the appropriate term from the alternative vocabulary rather than org:siteAddress." > > I understand that this extra wording is redundant in many ways, but suggest that it does add clarity. > > Whatever the resolution of the issue, it may end up as an LC comment. > > Phil. > > > On 25/10/2012 09:23, Government Linked Data Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> ISSUE-45 (RegAddress): Align treatment of registered addresses between Org and RegOrg [Organization Ontology] >> >> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/45 >> >> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak >> On product: Organization Ontology >> >> It seems there is a relationship between rov:registeredAddress and org:hasRegisteredSite/org:siteAddress that should be documented. Ideally, there should be uniform treatment. It would be unfortunate if ORG requires one encoding for the address, and RegOrg requires an incompatible second one. >> >>> From the thread at http://www.w3.org/mid/5088EFD3.4040600@gmail.com : >> >> ORG uses vCard. However, vCard is not INSPIRE conformant. The registeredAddress property is intended to link to an INSPIRE-conformant address class soon. This relates to the LOCADD CG which is currently being held up by a bit of EC bureaucracy. On the other hand, it is unclear why "INSPIRE compatibility" (with its European focus) should be a requirement for a W3C spec, though it is understandable why it is for ISA. >> >> Among our options are: >> >> (1) To find a way to encode INSPIRE conformant addresses within vCard. >> >> (2) Have RegOrg use org:hasRegisteredSite and then have it or some other (possibly non-GLD) vocabulary provide a non-vcard means to express addresses of a site. Using a resource to identify a site, independent of the particular serialization conventions for its address, is probably a good thing, and may be something that RegOrg could adopt. There's nothing to stop an org:Site having other expressions of address information. >> >> >> >> > > -- > > > Phil Archer > W3C eGovernment > http://www.w3.org/egov/ > > http://philarcher.org > +44 (0)7887 767755 > @philarcher1 >
Received on Thursday, 25 October 2012 09:41:35 UTC