Or, in the U.S. we could just partition a new web with top level domains reflective of the agencies and departments financed by our tax dollars. Open Gov!
Michael A. Norton
________________________________
From: Chris Beer <chris@e-beer.net.au>
To: Stuart A. Yeates <syeates@gmail.com>
Cc: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>; Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>; "public-egov-ig@w3.org" <public-egov-ig@w3.org>
Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 10:22:12 PM
Subject: Re: Organization ontology
Good point!
Sent from my iPhone
On 02/06/2010, at 15:06, "Stuart A. Yeates" <syeates@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds
> <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of
>> organizational structures including government organizations.
>>
>> This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some
>> checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our
>> needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to
>> particular domains of use.
>>
>> [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html
>
> I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of
> Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been
> built into it.
>
> What would be great would be to see a handful of different
> organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions
> modelled. Maybe:
> * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems
> pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some
> control after they leave office
> * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church
> * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly
> appears to sit above a formal constitution
>
> cheers
> stuart
>
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 05:48:10 UTC