This wiki has been archived and is now read-only.

ORG PR transition

From Government Linked Data (GLD) Working Group Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

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-pr-diff.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

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

This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.

This ontology was originally developed and published outside of W3C, but has been extended and further developed within the Government Linked Data Working Group.

This document was published by the Government Linked Data Working Group as a Proposed Recommendation. This document is intended to become a W3C Recommendation. The W3C Membership and other interested parties are invited to review the document and send comments to public-gld-comments@w3.org (subscribe, archives) through 12 January 2014. Advisory Committee Representatives should consult their WBS questionnaires. Note that substantive technical comments were expected during the Last Call review period that ended 08 April 2013.

Please see the Working Group's implementation report.

Publication as a Proposed Recommendation does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

This document was produced by a group operating under the 5 February 2004 W3C Patent Policy. W3C maintains a public list of any patent disclosures made in connection with the deliverables of the group; that page also includes instructions for disclosing a patent. An individual who has actual knowledge of a patent which the individual believes contains Essential Claim(s) must disclose the information in accordance with section 6 of the W3C Patent Policy.

Changes to the document

Substantive changes

There have been no substantive changes.

Minor changes

  • Changed reference to Turtle specification to be non-normative, it is only used in non-normative examples.
  • 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.
  • Removed CR specific text on implementation feedback and At Risk features.

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 intended 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.

A consolidated summary of comment disposition including those from Last Call is provided at: ORG comments.

Formal objections

None received.

Dependencies on other groups

The specification uses Turtle syntax for its examples and thus references the Turtle CR document non-normatively.

Record the group's decision to request advancement


Expected date of publication

17 Dec 2013