- From: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:54:33 +0100
- To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- CC: public-gld-wg@w3.org
On 18/10/2012 13:41, John Erickson wrote: > 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... Only that org:FormalOrganization is the class we have for the range of Legal Entities you mention. That's done and agreed as part of ORG. What we're after here is entries in a register, the act of registration being what creates the legal entity, hence various options around "Registered foo bar". HTH? Phil. > > 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 >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > > -- Phil Archer W3C eGovernment http://www.w3.org/egov/ http://philarcher.org +44 (0)7887 767755 @philarcher1
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2012 12:55:06 UTC