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

RE: Organization ontology

From: Todd Vincent <Todd.Vincent@xmllegal.org>
Date: Tue, 8 Jun 2010 04:11:09 +0000
To: "Emmanouil Batsis (Manos)" <manos@abiss.gr>, William Waites <ww-keyword-okfn.193365@styx.org>
CC: William Waites <william.waites@okfn.org>, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Message-ID: <9E3C243382F12242A1C67094B060CCB512D4A439@XMLLEGAL06.xmllegal.local>
In case this is helpful, the following are the high-level templates I typically use when modeling Person and Organization. These can/do change based on the application.  One of the goals of these structures is to keep the two objects as similar as possible.

- Name (1)
- AlternateNames (0-many)
- ContactPerson (0-1)
- Addresses  (0-many)
- Phones (0-many)
- Emails (0-many)
- Websites (0-many)
- Identifiers (0-many)
- Roles (0-many)
-- Name (1)
-- Identifier (1)
-- RoleAssociations (0-many)

- Name (1)
- AlternateNames (0-many)
- ContactOrganization (0-1)
- Addresses  (0-many)
- Phones (0-many)
- Emails (0-many)
- Websites (0-many)
- Identifiers (0-many)
- Descriptions (0-many)
- Roles (0-many)
-- Name (1)
-- Identifier (1)
-- RoleAssociations (0-many)

The content models for Name, AlternateName and Identifiers differ for Person and Organization; Organization includes @OrganizationType, and ContactPerson and ContactOrganization are switched, but otherwise the model is the same.  This is not intended to be a one size fits all model.  Different applications have different needs.  This is just one way to do it that I have found works well in a number of situations.

Again, hope this is helpful,


-----Original Message-----
From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Emmanouil Batsis (Manos)
Sent: Monday, June 07, 2010 6:04 PM
To: William Waites
Cc: William Waites; Dave Reynolds; Linked Data community; public-egov-ig@w3.org
Subject: Re: Organization ontology

On 06/08/2010 12:27 AM, William Waites 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?

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.

b) what happens when organizations change legal status?

More on the latter - If you'd like to make having evolving graphs easier, you might as well make some legal-status a property and have anyone use URIs that work best for them.

Which BTW makes adoption easier as well; Gov's might even pick it up and adapt to their local legal definitions of organization types or something, but any logic code made for plain old Organization will know how to deal with those.



Manos Batsis, Chief Technologist
          __    _
   ____ _/ /_  (_)_________ ____ ______
  / __ `/ __ \/ / ___/ ___// __ `/ ___/
/ /_/ / /_/ / (__  |__  )/ /_/ / /
\__,_/_.___/_/____/____(_)__, /_/

19, Kalvou Street,
14231, Nea Ionia,
Athens, Greece

Tel: +30 211-1027-900
Fax: +30 211-1027-999


Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 04:10:10 UTC

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