ISSUE-45: Align treatment of registered addresses between Org and RegOrg
RegAddress
Align treatment of registered addresses between Org and RegOrg
- State:
- CLOSED
- Product:
- Organization Ontology
- Raised by:
- Richard Cyganiak
- Opened on:
- 2012-10-25
- Description:
- 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/[email protected] :
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. - Related Actions Items:
- No related actions
- Related emails:
- Re: ADMS review (from [email protected] on 2013-05-03)
- Re: ADMS review (from [email protected] on 2013-05-02)
- Re: ADMS review (from [email protected] on 2013-04-07)
- Re: [RegOrg] Issue-45 - request for review (from [email protected] on 2013-02-28)
- [RegOrg] Issue-45 - request for review (from [email protected] on 2013-02-21)
- Re: [ORG] Disposition of issues (from [email protected] on 2013-02-20)
- Re: [ORG] Disposition of issues (from [email protected] on 2013-02-19)
- [ORG] Disposition of issues (from [email protected] on 2013-02-16)
- Re: Open ORG issues (from [email protected] on 2013-02-15)
- Re: Open ORG issues (from [email protected] on 2013-02-14)
- Re: Open ORG issues (from [email protected] on 2013-02-14)
- Open ORG issues (from [email protected] on 2013-02-14)
- GLD Minutes 2012-12-06 (from [email protected] on 2012-12-06)
- Re: ISSUE-45 (RegAddress): Align treatment of registered addresses between Org and RegOrg [Organization Ontology] (from [email protected] on 2012-10-25)
- Re: ISSUE-45 (RegAddress): Align treatment of registered addresses between Org and RegOrg [Organization Ontology] (from [email protected] on 2012-10-25)
- ISSUE-45 (RegAddress): Align treatment of registered addresses between Org and RegOrg [Organization Ontology] (from [email protected] on 2012-10-25)
Related notes:
Note, this should be considered an issue filed against both Org and RegOrg.
Richard Cyganiak, 25 Oct 2012, 08:23:36Moved to Pending Review 21-Feb-2013 per mailing list discussion & review on telecon with DaveReynolds.
Bernadette Hyland, 21 Feb 2013, 15:19:01Per 28-Feb-2013 telecon, confirmed with DaveR and cygri, satisfied.
Bernadette Hyland, 28 Feb 2013, 15:18:45On org side, there is no range constraint, just a recommendation referring to RegOrg, so there is now no inconsistency
Deirdre Lee, 28 Feb 2013, 16:14:04On org side, there is no range constraint, just a recommendation referring to RegOrg, so there is now no inconsistency
Deirdre Lee, 28 Feb 2013, 16:26:06Display change log
