Use of object properties

[ddooley]

Is the ORG ontology open to using a reduced - even minimal - set of object and data properties? This would encourage less relationship glue needs to be learned as one attaches organization info to all the things they are involved in. Examples:

"has organizational appointee" "has organizational associate" "has organizational member" etc...
could possibly be transformed into a class structure of types of person belonging to an organization:
appointee, associate, member etc, and just one "has member" relation joining any of them.

"Has time instant" -> use OWL:Time for this?

"has website" / "website of": Assuming website - and many other kinds of document, like charter - are information artifacts that will be associated with an organization. A light treatment would be "website 'is about' some organization" but this doesn't imply organization controls the content. We could use a stronger "is about" relation: "content managed on behalf of" perhaps. Legal documents about the formation or closure of an organization are external to organization itself though so we'd want to distinguish about-ness from document ownership - perhaps another relation required there.

"has spin-off organization" , "has successor organization" ... maybe "created by" / "creator of" for spin-offs - I see SIO has these, looks like RO could use them. OR, put flexible use of RO relations to a test in a metaphorical way. RO has "transformation of" for successor?

I could see a hierarchy of types of name, including "organizational name", and "official organizational name" as ICEs, which have string values and are simply "about" some organization entity.

Data property "number of employees" sounds like a data item - which can be measured across time, so could be part of a data set. Rather than using a single relation that makes it complicated to change over time.

Just some thoughts...

Damion

[StroemPhi]

The types of names part might be a little bit more complex, I assume. We should involve Matthias Brochhausen in this, as this seems to be part of his PNO/IAO branch. and I guess this would need its own issue as well.
As to me these names are identifiers (proper names) that denote the organization. With regaqrd to acronyms and abreviations of organization names, it seems best to also use the annotation property strategy for synonyms suggested here: information-artifact-ontology/ontology-metadata#70 (comment)