Re: ISSUE-38 (Registered what?): Name of the vocab formerly known as Core Business Vocabulary, currently called Legal Entity [Organization Ontology]

I think "Legal Entity" is strong choice, based on the commonly
accepted definition of "legal entity," which includes a laundry-list
of "entity" types that may enter into legal contracts.

Recent popular usage has tilted toward financial institutions, but
that is largely due to the push for LEIs, driven by certain
policymaking. I think our work should concern the broader concept of
the "legal entity" and the definition of a vocabulary that may be
rigorously applied to *any* manner of LE's, including associations,
corporations (for-profit or not), partnerships, proprietorships,
trusts, or indeed individuals.

Thus, it's not clear to me what registration has to do with
it...unless indeed we intend to exclude legal entities that aren't
registered. In which case, I wonder how we describe unregistered legal
entities.

Perhaps I'm missing something here...

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 7:36 AM, Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org> wrote:
> On 10/18/2012 05:31 AM, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>>
>> On 18/10/12 09:51, Government Linked Data Working Group Issue Tracker
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> ISSUE-38 (Registered what?): Name of the vocab formerly known as Core
>>> Business Vocabulary, currently called Legal Entity [Organization Ontology]
>>>
>>> http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/track/issues/38
>>>
>>> Raised by: Phil Archer
>>> On product: Organization Ontology
>>>
>>> The WG recently resolved to change the name of the 'Core Business
>>> Vocabulary' as the term was considered too broad and misleading. No
>>> objections anywhere.
>>>
>>> However, it turns out that the choice of what to rename it to was
>>> unfortunate. I'd like to resolve this as part of the ORG to LC debate to
>>> clarify the relationship with it (although this does not in any way affect
>>> ORG itself).
>>
>>
>> Seems entirely reasonable to me (IANAC  - I am not a chair) to discuss
>> this as a neighbouring agenda item but don't make it part of moving org to
>> LC.
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> 1. Registered business entity (recommended by Rigo)
>>>
>>> 2. Registered corporate entity (in line with Sandro's view).
>>
>>
>> Either of these is fine by me.
>>
>> In British English then corporation has a specific meaning (by Royal
>> charter). I would guess that in the UK most people's exposure to the term
>> corporation, other than the BBC, is in the context of large US-based
>> companies so it has a subjective connotation of "big (commercial) business"
>> whatever the technicalities under US law. However, I don't think that is
>> fatal as a name for the vocabulary, the vocab itself will be specific about
>> what it means.
>
>
> "Corporate" definitely has that connotation in US English as well.
> "Corporation" a little less.  I think "Incorporated" is mostly free of it,
> which makes me think "Incorporated Organization" might be a good term here.
> I guess it still has the problem of including the BBC.
>
> I'm fine with Registered Legal Entity.
>
>
>> One other option is simply "registered organization vocabulary",
>> technically we can regard it as a profile of ORG after all.
>>
>
> Or, yeah, that's okay, too.   It's not clear what kind of registration one
> has in mind there -- it might include US partnerships which are registered
> as having a business license but not being incorporated, I think.   My
> understanding is this vocabulary was only meant to cover the kind of
> registration that makes an entity able to legally possess assets and
> liabilities. But, yeah, registered organization is fine with me.
>
>      -- Sandro
>>
>> Dave
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
John S. Erickson, Ph.D.
Director, Web Science Operations
Tetherless World Constellation (RPI)
<http://tw.rpi.edu> <olyerickson@gmail.com>
Twitter & Skype: olyerickson

Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 12:42:26 UTC