- From: James McKinney <james@opennorth.ca>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:31:29 -0400
- To: John Erickson <olyerickson@gmail.com>
- Cc: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>, public-gld-wg@w3.org
Why not simply "Corporation"? I'm not familiar with laws around the world, but in Canada, for instance, businesses, nonprofits, charities are all corporations, and all corporations go through a registration process that gives them an identifier. (Governments in Canada are also corporations, and I don't think they have registration identifiers, but you'll likely find an exception to any term you pick.) "Business entity" is also fine. On 2012-10-18, at 8:59 AM, John Erickson wrote: > Thanks Phil for the clarification! > > If the intent is to provide additional vocabulary peculiar to > registered LEs for the purpose of (in essence) extending and > complementing ORG, et.al., then I vote for one of... > > * Registered Legal Entity > * Registered Entity > * Registered Corporation > > ...in that order ;) > > On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 8:54 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote: >> >> >> 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 > > > > -- > 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 13:32:00 UTC