mconlon17 / organization-ontology Goto Github PK

What term needs to be improved? (to add terms, please use Feature Request)

ORG:0000042 facility

What needs to be improved? (annotations, subsumption, class expressions, other)

Definition: An architectural structure that bears some function.

Suggested improvement

In ORG, facility is necessarily an architectural structure, which is defined as:

A material entity that is a human made strcuture (sp) with firm connection between its foundation and the ground.

But what about research facilities in space? We have many data sets collected from facilities onboard the ISS, and obviously those facilities have no "foundations" connected to "the ground". I agree facilities must bear some function, and they are definitely material entities...but not necessarily architectural structures, as ORG defines those. We looking for to define some other distinguishing features of facilities to include in their definitions, and have postulated that facilities might be necessarily designs/constructed with specific intent to have their capabilities shared across groups or at least between several people.

Attribution

0000-0003-4312-9552

I am interested in importing many terms from VIVO/ORG into our OBO Foundry Ontology, the SLSO. I can do this without it being in OBO Foundry (that is....with purls provided by OBO), but it is MUCH MUCH easier if the constituent concepts of ORG having working purls.....

Thanks for any information on this....

I think the Michael Conlon ORCID id is https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1304-8447 rather than https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1304-8448 as shown in about 20 object property entries in the ontology?

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