Re: Business Voc and ADMS

Hi Phil,

On 06/09/12 14:12, Phil Archer wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> An update on progress with a couple of the ISA Programme inputs.
>
> Business Core Vocabulary
> ========================
> This vocabulary is gaining the most attention with existing
> implementation by Open Corporates, test implementations going on in
> Sweden and active discussions around its use by the Belgian company
> register.
>
> I have created a W3C/GLD version of the spec and put it in the Mercurial
> repository [1] with the RDF schema in the same directory.
>
> Due to the interest in this vocabulary right now (and active promotion
> by the EU and its contractors) I am keen to secure approval from the GLD
> to publish this as an FPWD, modulo any comments of course, particularly
> from Dave (cf. Org Ontology which this sub classes).

As I've noted before there are some issues both with this vocabulary 
itself and with the expression of it.

However, I've no objection to it going to FPWD so long as these issues 
are at least noted as editorial comments.

The issues I've noted on skimming through the current state are:

(1) legal:companyType appears to duplicate org:classification. The RDF 
states a subclass relationship but that is not reflected in the 
specification text and it is not clear why they are not equivalent.

(2) The relationship between legal:identifier and org:identfier needs to 
be clarified. Org extends skos:notation and adopts existing practice 
there, it would be helpful to at least explain why that's not 
appropriate for legal:identifier.

(3) The specification uses the term "Abstract Data Type" but does not 
define it. Presumably it is defined in ADMS but (a) that means this spec 
fails to standalone, (b) this should simply be rdfs:range.

(4) Specific Abstract Data Types are mention but none of them are 
defined: Text, Code, Identifier, Address, Legal Entity.
[Of course, I realize that "Legal Entity" is supposed to refer to 
legal:LegalEntity but that should be explicit.]

The latter two worry me, I'd rather we didn't end up introducing new 
terminology for expressing RDFS/OWL vocabularies.

> Alongside the spec, I'd like to publish the RDF schema and associated
> namespace document. Currently there is a holding page at
> http://www.w3.org/ns/legal# that is becoming increasingly embarrassing.

I've no objection to this.

Minor: I would prefer use of owl:DatatypeProperty and owl:ObjectProperty 
where appropriate rather than making everything an rdf:Property - that 
conveys intention a little more clearly.

> Conformance
> ===========
> Both of these documents include a suggested text for conformance on
> which I would be grateful to receive feedback and, when appropriate, WG
> approval. I *think* it's what the group decided on the call we had a few
> weeks back with Rufus but it needs WG review.

I thought we talked about conformance also requirement conformance with 
the given semantics for the terms.

If I use legal:legalIdentifier but give it's value as a string am I 
conforming?

Suppose I use a URI there, such as one minted by UK Companies House but 
not declared as an adms:Identifier, am I conforming?

Dave

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2012 14:03:50 UTC