W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-gld-comments@w3.org > April 2013

Re: 列: RegOrg ontology

From: Marios Meimaris <m.meimaris@medialab.ntua.gr>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 18:13:36 +0300
Message-ID: <51700DA0.1040305@medialab.ntua.gr>
To: kotis@aegean.gr
CC: public-gld-comments@w3.org, kotis@samos.gr, h.athanasakis@samos.gr, nikolaos.loutas@pwc.be, stijn.goedertier@pwc.be
Kostas, Nikos,

IHU uses RegOrg, however NTUA's classification is a profile of ORG. This 
is done because our primary intention was to describe payers and payees 
that are not limited to formally registered organizations.

As is stated in the ORG [1] document
> It is anticipated that profiles will either introduce sub-classes 
> oforg:Organization 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#org:Organization>or 
> define a classification scheme for organizations. To support the 
> latter the ontology supplies a propertyorg:classification 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#org:classification>which 
> can be used the classify an organization using a SKOS [SKOS-REFERENCE 
> <https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/org/index.html#bib-SKOS-REFERENCE>] 
> concept scheme.
We have taken the former approach, making the custom taxonomy's top 
concept a subclass of org:Organization . This way, traversing the graph 
up starting from here 
you can see that you end up in an ORG class.

The psgr:legalStatus property is a mere transfer of the string literal 
found in the General Secretariat of Information Systems (GSIS) web 
service to the psgr dataset. Nikos, I know they are not plain literals, 
but (pardon my ignorance if I'm wrong) they are drawn from the 
psgr:legalStatus property which comes from the legal status description 
found in the GSIS web service. The overlapping information and meaning I 
mentioned earlier is found in GSIS, not in IHU. Sorry for any 

Kind regards,
Marios Meimaris

On 18/04/2013 17:20, Kotis Kostas wrote:
> Thanks for that. Actually, I do know that your work is 'feeding' IHU!!!
> I still have a problem though. I'd like to describe it with an example
> however: I am searching for the rdf data related to my organization, i.e.
> North Aegean Region Administrative Authority (NARAA) "信焉峙雅闪 孪雅上
> 辽昧上' in Greek, and I get the following 2 responses for both sparql
> services respectively:
> 1. http://publicspending.medialab.ntua.gr/describe/paymentAgents/090344143
> (NTUA)
> 2. http://linkeddata.ihu.edu.gr/id/company/090344143 (IHU)
> As expected, there is a sameAs property relating these entities (defined in
> IHU dataset). But in (1), the entity is described as "那滔由 招茄庞闪" via
> the property psgr:legalStatus, and in (2) the entity is described as "
> 那滔由 招茄庞闪@gr" using the property
> http://www.w3.org/ns/regorg#companyType. In addition, you now introduce a
> new term to characterize organizations in Greece, using the uri
> http://publicspending.medialab.ntua.gr/organizationsOntology#PublicLegalEnti
> ty (label "Public Legal Entity", which I guess it comes from your own custom
> vocabulary (which you say it is a profile of ORG).
> The question is, give all these three different ways to describe the type of
> my organization, i.e. a 'Greek public formal legal organization', which
> namespace will be the most appropriate? I feel that re-using REGORG
> namespace is a more appropriate practice, don't you?
> Anyways, for me now it is a matter of linking our dataset with one of the
> two datasets (IHU or NTUA), since NARAA entity is already defined in the
> LOGD (twice).
> BR,
> Kostas
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marios Meimaris [mailto:m.meimaris@medialab.ntua.gr]
> Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:26 PM
> To: public-gld-comments@w3.org; Kotis Kostas
> Subject: Re: 列: RegOrg ontology
> Dear Kostas,
>       the data from the IHU browser is actually drawn from the sparql
> endpoint at http://publicspending.medialab.ntua.gr/ .
> The IHU project uses the string descriptions taken from the greek taxation
> service (TAXIS), but there is no actual standardization or schema involved
> and sometimes the strings have overlapping meanings and even typos.
> In the publicspending.gr project we have actually deployed a small taxonomy
> for greek organizations as a profile of ORG, having in mind future mappings
> to foreign classification schemata.
> You can see the legal entity types here
> http://publicspending.medialab.ntua.gr/en/endpoint , selecting the
> predefined query "Categorization of legal entities" from the example queries
> dropdown.
> Kind regards,
> Marios Meimaris
> On 18/04/2013 16:16, Kotis Kostas wrote:
>> Hi again,
>> just found an interesting project in Greece, as an ISA pilot use case by
> IHU, where they actually defined a  SKOS concept scheme for Greek Company
> types. There they have also included "Public Service" (那滔由 招茄庞闪@gr)
> under http://www.w3.org/ns/regorg#companyType (for greek public
> organizations).
>> I hope you can access the related resource url:
>> http://linkeddata.ihu.edu.gr/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Flinkeddata.ihu
>> .edu.gr%2Fid%2Fgrtypes%2Fdy otherwise see at
>> http://linkeddata.ihu.edu.gr:8080/rdf-browser/
>> BR,
>> Konstantinos
>> Konstantinos Kotis, PhD
>> Post Doctoral Research Scientist
>> Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus.
>> Head of IT Department
>> Samos Regional Unit, North Aegean Region Admin. Authority.
>> Greece
>> +30 6974822712
>> http://gr.linkedin.com/in/kotis
>> ________________________________________
>> 琉: Chris Beer [chris@codex.net.au]
>> 琉矬麸朕: 藻糗耵, 17 琉耖脒秕 2013 11:32 痨
>> 旭矧: Kotis Kostas
>> 曙轫.: phila@w3.org; public-gld-comments@w3.org
>> 容灬: Re: RegOrg ontology
>> Hi Kotis
>> Saw this -> randomly jumping in.
>> My first instinct (noting the similarities in our organisations in terms
> of names ;) ) would be to see your example as an ORG unit/entity which has
> the function of Regional Administration.
>> If the RAB's in Greece conduct a commercial activity (as opposed to say
> simply setting policy priorities and administrating grant funding as a
> public sector function) then certainly here they would fit the description
> of a rov:companyType ( we call them a Government Business Enterprise or GBE
> - and we would link back to ORG to a Department of State and associated
> Cabinet Minister  through a PROV change event such as our Financial
> Management Act which governs how the public sector can engage with the
> public commercially).
>> I guess what I am suggesting is to look to already defined PROV and ORG
> entities etc, to see if a logical combination presents itself which would
> alleviate the creation of a bespoke concept?
>> 2 cents worth - feel free to disregard or vehemently argue all. :)
>> Cheers
>> Chris
>> -----------------------
>> Chris Beer
>> Manager - Online Services
>> Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport
>> All views my own unless otherwise stated
>> Sent from my ASUS Eee Pad
>> Kotis Kostas <kotis@aegean.gr> wrote:
>>> Dear Phil,
>>> I am working on an ontology for 'IT helpdesk support ticketing' for
> public sector organizations (eGov) and I am using ORG and RegOrg
> vocabularies for some upper level descriptions of example data. I think that
> rov:companyType property is not suitable for public organizations, or is it?
> Introducing for instance a concept "Regional Administration Body' in order
> to classify an instance such as the public organization 'North Aegean
> Regional Administration' body of Greece, could be possbile?
>>> Thanks in advance,
>>> Konstantinos Kotis, PhD
>>> Post Doctoral Research Scientist
>>> Department of Digital Systems, University of Piraeus.
>>> Head of IT Department
>>> Samos Regional Unit, North Aegean Region Admin. Authority.
>>> Greece
>>> +30 6974822712
>>> http://gr.linkedin.com/in/kotis
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 15:14:25 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 10 October 2018 10:43:22 UTC