- From: Stuart A. Yeates <syeates@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2010 17:06:56 +1200
- To: Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com>
- Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, public-egov-ig@w3.org
On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds <dave.e.reynolds@googlemail.com> wrote: > We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of > organizational structures including government organizations. > > This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some > checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our > needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to > particular domains of use. > > [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been built into it. What would be great would be to see a handful of different organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions modelled. Maybe: * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some control after they leave office * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly appears to sit above a formal constitution cheers stuart
Received on Wednesday, 2 June 2010 05:07:30 UTC