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

Re: Organization ontology

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Tue, 08 Jun 2010 06:54:45 -0400
Message-ID: <4C0E2175.70203@openlinksw.com>
To: "Peristeras, Vassilios" <vassilios.peristeras@deri.org>
CC: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>, "Emmanouil Batsis (Manos)" <manos@abiss.gr>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, public-egov-ig@w3.org
Peristeras, Vassilios wrote:
> Hello all,
> I have the feeling that we are (at least partly) reinventing the wheel
> here. There have been several initiatives drafting generic models and
> representations for organizations. Just two examples below [1][2] which
> go back to 90ies. 
> More generally, an in-depth look at design and data patterns literature
> could also help a lot. I have the feeling that others before this group
> have defined concepts like "organization", "legal entity" etc... We
> could re-use their conceptual (or data or formal) models, instead of
> starting the discussion from scratch. 
> Best regards,
> Vassilios
>
> [1] http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/enterprise/enterprise/ontology.html
> [2] http://www.eil.utoronto.ca/enterprise-modelling/tove/
>
>
>   

Both of your links point to PDFs or Postscript docs.

Are there any actual ontology doc URLs?


Kingsley
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-egov-ig-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-egov-ig-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Dave Reynolds
> Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2010 11:27 AM
> To: Emmanouil Batsis (Manos)
> Cc: Linked Data community; public-egov-ig@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Organization ontology
>
> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>   


-- 

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen 
Received on Tuesday, 8 June 2010 10:55:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:27 UTC