W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-egov-ig@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Organization ontology

From: Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>
Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 15:22:12 +1000
Message-Id: <F336F0C9-4E98-4B58-8B60-9687CBE89FD8@e-beer.net.au>
To: "Stuart A. Yeates" <syeates@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Good point!

Sent from my iPhone

On 02/06/2010, at 15:06, "Stuart A. Yeates" <syeates@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds
> <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for  
>> description of
>> organizational structures including government organizations.
>> This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After  
>> some
>> checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely  
>> met our
>> needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible  
>> to
>> particular domains of use.
>> [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html
> I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of
> Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been
> built into it.
> What would be great would be to see a handful of different
> organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions
> modelled. Maybe:
> * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems
> pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some
> control after they leave office
> * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church
> * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly
> appears to sit above a formal constitution
> cheers
> stuart
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 05:22:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 2 June 2010 05:22:20 GMT