Re: Business Voc and ADMS

Hi Phil,
Thanks for putting this info together. We look forward to iterating/refining it within the GLD WG.  

A couple macro observations:

1) The terms "Business Core" is too broad.  A business has many forms and what you're addressing is "Legal Entities" that have undergone a formal registration process.  

Suggestion: Change the name from proposed "Business Core Vocabulary" which is very broad to something more specific,e.g.,  "Legal Entity Vocabulary".  The vocab nick name should be the same as the namespace to avoid confusion.

2) "Legal" alone is also too broad.  Suggestion:  

Please consider changing FROM:
This version:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/legal/
Latest published version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-legal/
Latest editor's draft:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/legal/
Previous version:
none

TO:
This version:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/legal-entity/
Latest published version:
http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-legal-entity/
Latest editor's draft:
http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/legal-entity/
Previous version:
none

I know this is a pain & causes some headaches in the near term re: fixing up Mercurial but I think it's the right thing to do ... names are important.

3) Please consider getting some additional editorial support.  I think having at least two, preferably three editors for such a key vocab is necessary.  


Specific observations/feedback:

4) Section 5. Example of Use

Something I and hopefully others may find helpful is acknowledgement of widely used alternatives.  For example, for Why aren't recommending use of vcard for address [1], place for city, state and WGS84 [2], the World Geodetic System standard for coordinates? 

Anyone know what was the fate of the W3C Sem Web IG [3] that looked at this a long time ago?  Interestingly, the wikipedia page notes that the latest revisions of WGS 84 was value up to 2010 and states [citation needed] [4]


5) The GLD WG is close to putting forth the Organizational vocab for LC.  Recognition of where using one versus the other would be useful to a developer IMO.  Legal entities are different to organizations and that should come across since they are both related to business and/or organizations.   

6) RE: 6.9 Registered Address

Again, explicit mention of why note the widely used vcard and WGS84 alternatives are insufficient.  This is perhaps something we should discuss in the next scheduled GLD WG telecon that covers this vocab.  

Thanks for your consideration & effort on this one.  Very much appreciate your efforts.


Cheers,

Bernadette Hyland, co-chair 
W3C Government Linked Data Working Group
Charter: http://www.w3.org/2011/gld/


[1] http://www.w3.org/Submission/vcard-rdf/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos
[3] http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/
[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Geodetic_System


On Sep 6, 2012, at 9:12 AM, 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).
> 
> 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.
> 
> ADMS
> ====
> I put a W3C version of the ADMS spec in Mercurial before the summer break [3] and revised the RDF schema in the light of comments from Dave and Irene. I took another look at it today and there may be more to do of course but an updated version of the schema is now at [4].
> 
> Again, there is significant interest and discussion around ADMS in Europe and, politically, we need it published as an FPWD if the WG is happy to advance it to that stage.
> 
> A schema is in place at http://www.w3.org/ns/adms# but this is the old one. I'd like to make sure that the version at [4] really is an improvement and, if so, make that the live version.
> 
> 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.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Phil.
> 
> [1] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/legal/index.html
> [2] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/legal/legal20120906.rdf
> [3] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/index.html
> [4] http://dvcs.w3.org/hg/gld/raw-file/default/adms/adms20120906.rdf
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Phil Archer
> W3C eGovernment
> http://www.w3.org/egov/
> 
> http://philarcher.org
> +44 (0)7887 767755
> @philarcher1
>