Re: Business Voc and ADMS

Thanks Bernadette, comments inline below.

On 11/09/2012 17:26, Bernadette Hyland wrote:
> 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".

No problem IMO.

   The vocab nick name should be the same as the namespace to avoid 
confusion.

OK, there we might have more of a problem (although I understand the 
sentiment). I put a holding page for the schema at 
http://www.w3.org/ns/legal a while back and it's the namespace in the 
EC-published version which is now in use (albeit limited use for now). 
Last week's WG resolved that we could publish the schema (which I am 
close to doing) but not yet the spec document (which Dave and others, 
rightly, want to think about more carefully).

So, options are:
- shoot for http://ww.w3.org/ns/legal-entity# (and irritate Open 
Corporates and poss Swedish govt.)
- stick with http://www.w3.org/ns/legal# and have a slight difference 
with the spec doc

>
> 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.

Indeed. Mercurial doesn't matter here. I'm perfectly happy with 
/vocab-legal-entity, it's just the actual namespace I'm slightly 
resistant to - but not so much that I'd argue strongly in front of the 
group.

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

I would warmly welcome some extra editorial support.

>
>
> 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]

The problem with vCard is the EU INSPIRE Directive. It sets out a way to 
record addresses that Member States are legally obliged to follow. Only 
significant difference is that INSPIRE has separate fields for locator 
and thoroughfare (i.e. house number and street) whereas all-American 
vCard lumps them together. There's a bunch of work going on in ISO about 
al this too. vCard is well short of being up to the job of international 
address interoperability.

The Location Core Voc, which includes this INSPIRE Address stuff, is one 
of the inputs to the LOCADD Community Group I started and am now trying 
to find a co-chair for so it can get moving (I'm very aware that I've 
done nada for it so far beyond form it). I hope that it can look at this 
issue. The current (ISA Programme) Location Core Voc gives an example of 
how you can work with vCard and link it all together but it's a pain. 
Addresses all have unique identifiers, sadly they're UUIDs, not anything 
helpful like a URI :-(

>
>
> 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.

The new voc subclasses Org in several respects. Legal Entity and 
org:FormalOrganization are extremely close in meaning and could 
potentially be merged but there is a difference of approach that can be 
relevant. For example, a charity might be an org:FormalOrganization but 
not necessarily a legal:LegalEntity, hence I made the latter a subclass 
of the former. Dave would, I think quite justifiably, be very annoyed if 
org was held up by legal. Org has widespread usage - let's not mess it up.

>
> 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.

See above.

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

Gotta go, I'm late for a call that started 5 mins ago ;-)

P


>
>
> 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
>>
>
>

-- 


Phil Archer
W3C eGovernment
http://www.w3.org/egov/

http://philarcher.org
+44 (0)7887 767755
@philarcher1

Received on Thursday, 13 September 2012 14:05:31 UTC