The object property is_organizational_context_of (https://www.commoncoreontologies.org/ont00001846) is currently defined as follows:
x is_organizational_context_of y iff x is an instance of an Organization and y is an instance of a Role and z is an instance of a Person, such that z's affiliation with x is a prerequisite for z bearing y, or x ascribes y to the bearer of y.
The clause about z seems to indicate either that the only roles bestowed by organizations are those which can be borne by persons. But this is also somewhat undercut by allowing x to simply ascribe roles to their bearers apparently regardless of either being persons or having some kind of organizational affiliation. I think it's clear that some roles with organizational contexts require their bearers to have some sort of broad affiliation with the organization regardless of whether those bearers are persons: An organization may designate a building (which is owned by the organization) as their headquarters, bestowing a role upon it, and that relies on more than mere ascription on the organization's part. Similarly, organizations may create sub-organizations or committees with certain roles or bestow new roles upon existing sub-organizations or committees, such that the bearing of the role in question is not merely a question of ascription, depending on the sub-organization or committee being a member part of the organization in question, being composed of member parts of the broader organization, or something more elaborate. But the current definition of the object property doesn't seem to capture these scenarios.
I believe that it's possible to retain what is useful about and seems intended by this definition by changing 'Person' to some more general class such as that of non-spatial-region independent continuants. But I'm not terribly confident that there isn't a better solution.
The object property is_organizational_context_of (https://www.commoncoreontologies.org/ont00001846) is currently defined as follows:
x is_organizational_context_of y iff x is an instance of an Organization and y is an instance of a Role and z is an instance of a Person, such that z's affiliation with x is a prerequisite for z bearing y, or x ascribes y to the bearer of y.
The clause about z seems to indicate either that the only roles bestowed by organizations are those which can be borne by persons. But this is also somewhat undercut by allowing x to simply ascribe roles to their bearers apparently regardless of either being persons or having some kind of organizational affiliation. I think it's clear that some roles with organizational contexts require their bearers to have some sort of broad affiliation with the organization regardless of whether those bearers are persons: An organization may designate a building (which is owned by the organization) as their headquarters, bestowing a role upon it, and that relies on more than mere ascription on the organization's part. Similarly, organizations may create sub-organizations or committees with certain roles or bestow new roles upon existing sub-organizations or committees, such that the bearing of the role in question is not merely a question of ascription, depending on the sub-organization or committee being a member part of the organization in question, being composed of member parts of the broader organization, or something more elaborate. But the current definition of the object property doesn't seem to capture these scenarios.
I believe that it's possible to retain what is useful about and seems intended by this definition by changing 'Person' to some more general class such as that of non-spatial-region independent continuants. But I'm not terribly confident that there isn't a better solution.