Holacracy CCO Implementation

Build a Solid App
1

Good afternoon @Smag0, I am one of the team members working on implementing the CCO Ontology with current existing Solid Apps. We wanted to thank you for reaching out to work with our team! @JimSchoening and the rest of the team are excited to start working directly with Solid community members.

I think the next best course of action would be to set up a meeting with myself, @JKReynolds and @Dylan24Martin in order to discuss what terms would be needed to cover your holacracy organizational structure.

What would be the best way to contact you?

Here is a link to the original thread: Common Core Ontology with Linked Data

-Jacob McConomy

1 Like
2

Hi @JacobMcConomy,
it’s not simple for a meeting, I’m in France & i’m not really confident for a call, beacuse of my poor english, I’m french, and can read / write english, but I’ve got some problems to speak fluently and to understand ;-( …

As I said, i’d like to represent the Holacratie Constitution Holacracy-Constitution/README.md at master · holacracyone/Holacracy-Constitution · GitHub

This is normally used for the management in an entreprise, but I think it can be applied for many situations, so I’d like to have something really universal that reflects really the reals entities, and that’s why CCO looks great to me.

For the moment, most important terms are defined at this URI https://holacratie.solid.community/public/holacratie.ttl .
A webapp can read this definition and follow uri to detailled Schema for each at https://holacratie.solid.community/public/Schema/
Then a form is construct with schema’s properties, and when submitted, the submission is stored in appropriate folder, like https://holacratie.solid.community/public/Tension/ for a submission of the “Tension” form.

The links between all terms are not defined yet and I hoped that the experience of your team could help me to have a “robust” schema.

You can browse that POD at Spoggy (double-clic on a node to open it)

made with Spoggy Spoggy

I hope to be enough clear, if not let me know…
David

2 Likes
3

I think this is clear, let me work with our team’s Ontologist to see how the Common Core Ontology (CCO) already supports terms you will need and what we will need to add. I will get back to you with any issues or questions we have as we progress on the task.

-Jacob McConomy

4

@Smag0 Thank you for your patience, we currently have a limited budget for our Ontologist. Here is his initial analysis:

"Greetings @Smag0,

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.

Cheers,

Mark Jensen"

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.

-Jacob McConomy