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

列: RegOrg ontology

From: Kotis Kostas <kotis@aegean.gr>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2013 19:07:55 +0300
To: Marios Meimaris <m.meimaris@medialab.ntua.gr>
CC: "public-gld-comments@w3.org" <public-gld-comments@w3.org>, "kotis@samos.gr" <kotis@samos.gr>, "h.athanasakis@samos.gr" <h.athanasakis@samos.gr>, "nikolaos.loutas@pwc.be" <nikolaos.loutas@pwc.be>, "stijn.goedertier@pwc.be" <stijn.goedertier@pwc.be>
Message-ID: <87230A7E62A21E4F9EBD941DF2A48F0303B98BC5D3E3@hermes.aegean.gr>
Thank you both for clarification.


朋糗腌 狃 麸 Windows Phone 祜
琉: Marios Meimaris
郁茈桤赍: 18/4/2013 6:13 祆
旭矧: Kotis Kostas
曙轫.: public-gld-comments@w3.org; kotis@samos.gr; h.athanasakis@samos.gr; nikolaos.loutas@pwc.be; stijn.goedertier@pwc.be
容灬: Re: 列: RegOrg ontology

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 of org: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 property org: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 http://publicspending.medialab.ntua.gr/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpublicspending.medialab.ntua.gr%2ForganizationsOntology%23PublicLegalEntity 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 misunderstanding.

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
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
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).



-----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<mailto: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

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

I hope you can access the related resource url:
.edu.gr%2Fid%2Fgrtypes%2Fdy otherwise see at



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.

+30 6974822712
琉: Chris Beer [chris@codex.net.au<mailto: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<mailto:phila@w3.org>; public-gld-comments@w3.org<mailto: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. :)




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><mailto: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.

+30 6974822712
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2013 16:08:25 UTC

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