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

Re: Organization ontology

From: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 09:27:14 +0100
To: "Emmanouil Batsis (Manos)" <manos@abiss.gr>
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, public-egov-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <1275985634.1592.42.camel@dave-desktop>
On Tue, 2010-06-08 at 01:03 +0300, Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) wrote:

> Sorry for jumping in. I was thinking that
> 
> a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called 
> LegalEntity to be more precise.

Not quite, there are other LegalEntities that are not Organizations.

The LegalEntity notion could be made explicit:

     org:FormalOrganization 
         subClassOf org:Organization AND ns:LegalEntity

This is better modelling because the primitive concepts are now explicit
and the nature of org:FormalOrganization as a derived concept is
clear.  

I nearly did it that way but my concern was that putting LegalEntity
into org: would open up a whole can of worms about needing richer
modelling of the notion of LegalEntity (e.g. Jurisdiction etc). That
would be off topic for the focused goals and requirements for org.

> b) what happens when organizations change legal status?

Pretty much any aspect of organizations change over time :) In the
context of this work there are already separate approaches to handling
versioning and change so org: defers to those. Though, in some
applications you do want to explicitly represent the historical trace of
those changes hence the inclusion of OPMV via org:ChangeEvent to give a
minimal foundation for that.

Cheers,
Dave
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 08:27:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 June 2010 08:27:52 GMT