- From: Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 15:22:12 +1000
- 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 UTC