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

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