@Smag0 Thank you for your patience, we currently have a limited budget for our Ontologist. Here is his initial analysis:
This is a very interesting project you are working on. Looking at the terms located atCaution-https://holacratie.solid.community/public/holacratie.ttl < Caution-https://holacratie.solid.community/public/holacratie.ttl > , and in the schemas for associate, role and tension, I see several terms in CCO that are relevant, such as: Agent, Group of Agents, Group of Persons, Organization, Group of Organizations, Role, Objective, Plan, Action Regulation, along with many properties for linking instances of these classes. However, finding terms are only a start. The work that needs to be done is in using these terms, and adding new ones where appropriate, to model the specific aspects of the Holacracy as you intend them. In order to support your use of CCO in modeling the Holacracy, we would need to engage in a dialogue to better understand your intended use case so that specific data elements can be mapped to the CCO and thus generate a linked graph for integrating and querying over that data.
For example, we don’t have a term for Associate, but this appears (given the schema for Associe) to be a person that is a member of an organization or group, with a name and role, and presumably a link to their Pod. However, you assert it as an individual rather than a class, so I am not sure if this your intent. I see that many terms are typed as individuals and agents when most seem more suitably typed as classes, which could then be asserted as subclasses of Agent. Likewise, I think your property “tenuPar” is equivalent to the one CCO imports from the Relation Ontology “bearer of”. E.g., Person bearer_of Role.
As a first step, it would be helpful to see some of your terms with definitions or comments to aid in explaining how they are to be used. My guess is you could adapt these from the materials on GitHub where the Holacracy Constitution is explained, but with careful thought as to how it fits within a more robust ontological framework. For example, from what I see there, a Circle is a described both in the abstract as a specification for roles and policies, such that it can be instantiated by different groups of agents in various contexts, but also as a group of persons that work in achieving an objective while realizing their individual roles. Making those kinds of distinctions will be important in using CCO to adapt your use case to a variety of different situations.
I also have a question, how does Solid fit into your plans. Are you just storing the organization’s architecture there or do you plan on linking Solid users to this structure?
We can’t currently commit our Ontologist full time to help you, but we are willing to continue this back and forth conversation to further understand your project and see what will be the best way to assist you.