- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2012 20:25:43 +0100
- To: Phil Archer <phila@w3.org>
- Cc: public-gld-wg@w3.org
On 18 Oct 2012, at 17:38, Phil Archer wrote: > requested short URI /TR/vocab-regorg, > namespace /ns/regorg# > preferred prefix ro: I'd suggest not to step on the toes of the OBO folks here: http://prefix.cc/ro http://www.obofoundry.org/ro/ How about rov or ror or reo or rego or rorg or reor or regorg as prefix? All of those are unregistered at prefix.cc. Best, Richard > > > My sincere thanks for all the attention paid to this. Expect an updated draft spec in the coming days. > > Phil. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/meeting/2012-10-18#Topic__3a__Core_Business_Vocabulary_renamed_to_Legal_Entity > > On 18/10/2012 14:48, Phil Archer wrote: >> >> >> On 18/10/2012 14:39, Dave Reynolds wrote: >> [..] >> >>> >>> ARGH! I now see that you've raised this as an issue on ORG. Did you >>> mean to do that? Surely this is an issue for the ontology formerly >>> known as the Legal Entity vocabulary. >> >> It's not an issue for ORG as such and I'm as keen as you that this does >> *not* hold up the LC transition - it shouldn't. I do, however, think it >> helpful at this stage to clarify what the LE/RCE/WTF vocab is about and >> why org:FormalOrganization isn't (quite) specific enough. >> >> >> > > -- > > > Phil Archer > W3C eGovernment > http://www.w3.org/egov/ > > http://philarcher.org > +44 (0)7887 767755 > @philarcher1 >
Received on Sunday, 21 October 2012 19:26:14 UTC