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

Re: Organization ontology

From: Kris Dev <krisdev@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 08:43:16 +0530
Message-ID: <AANLkTil1YeFOJVNVDnqV7EhUOHszhZQQthz0HnENlr1a@mail.gmail.com>
To: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, public-egov-ig@w3.org
Hi all,

Organizations can be formal, semi-formal, informal, etc. It can be
constituted by a person or a group of persons (collection / association of
people) for some purpose / objectives. I am not sure if there can be an
association of people, without a purpose!

Instead of members - stakeholders, contacts, associates, interested parties,
etc. may be relevant.


Kris Dev

On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 2:57 AM, William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org>wrote:

> On 10-06-03 16:04, Dave Reynolds wrote:
> > It would be great if you could suggest a better phrasing of the
> > description of a FormalOrganization that would better encompass the
> > range of entities you think should go there? Or are you advocating that
> > the distinction between a generic organization and a externally
> > recognized semi-autonomous organization is not a useful one?
> >
> Reading the rest of your mail, I think the latter. Do we really need
> FormalOrganisation at all? Can we not just have Organisation and
> then some extension vocabulary could have subclasses for different
> flavours of partnerships, corporations, unincorporated associations
> etc. as needed?
> I don't think the distinction is useless as such, perhaps that it is
> underspecified and "Formal" is ambiguous.
> > Again don't over read into the name. All we are doing is providing a
> > trinary relationship between people, organizations and roles. How a
> > particular application of the ontology wants to further model roles is
> > up to it. Given that we had to pick a name for the relationship then
> > "membership" seemed reasonable, any alternative ("affiliate", "belongs
> > to" etc) is likely to suffer from the same problem that there are
> > English language or legal connotations for it that would trip people up.
> > The most neutral alternative I came up with was "RoleInstance" but that
> > is (a) off-puttingly technical and (b) confusing since it's an owl:Class
> > and not the same as an instance of org:Role.
> >
> How about simply org:Relationship since it expresses details of the
> relationship of a person to an organisation? Then we could have,
> perhaps again in an extension vocabulary, Membership where that
> makes sense in the common usage, Shareholder, Partner, etc.
> >> The
> >> president of ${big_corporation} cannot be said to have any kind
> >> of membership relationship to that corporation, for example.
> >>
> > He plays a role that we might call "president" in that organization and
> > that could very happily be represented by an instance of the
> > org:Membership class.
> >
> I don't disagree that you can model it coherently like that, I just find
> the choice of name here jarring.
> > If the name of the Class is a barrier then it would be easy for you, in
> > specializing the ontology, to create a new Class for the relationship
> > which better suits the terminology of your application and make that a
> > sub-class or equivalent-class of org:Membership.
> >
> ... and an owl reasoner, etc. etc.
> I would just like it so that someone (human) reading some data in N3
> without necessarily reading the details of the vocabulary would
> understand the rough meaning. I think Membership is not "membership"
> in the usual sense and is confusing.
> Cheers,
> -w
> --
> William Waites           <william.waites@okfn.org>
> Mob: +44 789 798 9965    Open Knowledge Foundation
> Fax: +44 131 464 4948                Edinburgh, UK

Kris Dev,
President & CEO,
Life Line to Business / Life Line to Citizen,
Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India.
email: krisdev@gmail.com
URL: http://ll2b.blogspot.com
Ph: + 91 98 408 52132 / 1 (206) 274 1635
Twitter: @krisdev

Winner of Innovations Award 2009 for IT Innovation;
Manthan Awardee 2006 for Rural Grass-Root Initiative in Establishing Unique
Biometric Identity for e-Inclusion & Livelihood Creation;
Selected for World Bank Innovation Fair 2010.

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and
well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing
and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in
the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other
lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.  Article 25 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

"A quick evaluation of the progress we have achieved in the last 20 years
shows that in the area of poverty alleviation, we have not done enough.
 History will judge us harshly, unless we seize the opportunity to do more."
- Archbishop Njongo Ndungane, President and Founder, African Monitor.

"When the Power of Love overcomes the Love of Power the World will know
peace." Jimi Hendrix.

Practice is better than precept.
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 03:13:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:06 UTC