Re: Organization ontology

On 06/08/2010 12:27 AM, William Waites wrote:
> On 10-06-03 16:04, Dave Reynolds wrote:
>> It would be great if you could suggest a better phrasing of the
>> description of a FormalOrganization that would better encompass the
>> range of entities you think should go there? Or are you advocating that
>> the distinction between a generic organization and a externally
>> recognized semi-autonomous organization is not a useful one?
>>
>
> Reading the rest of your mail, I think the latter. Do we really need
> FormalOrganisation at all? Can we not just have Organisation and
> then some extension vocabulary could have subclasses for different
> flavours of partnerships, corporations, unincorporated associations
> etc. as needed?

Sorry for jumping in. I was thinking that

a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called 
LegalEntity to be more precise.

b) what happens when organizations change legal status?

More on the latter - If you'd like to make having evolving graphs 
easier, you might as well make some legal-status a property and have 
anyone use URIs that work best for them.

Which BTW makes adoption easier as well; Gov's might even pick it up and 
adapt to their local legal definitions of organization types or 
something, but any logic code made for plain old Organization will know 
how to deal with those.

Cheers,

Manos



-- 
Manos Batsis, Chief Technologist
          __    _
   ____ _/ /_  (_)_________ ____ ______
  / __ `/ __ \/ / ___/ ___// __ `/ ___/
/ /_/ / /_/ / (__  |__  )/ /_/ / /
\__,_/_.___/_/____/____(_)__, /_/
                         /____/
http://www.Abiss.gr
19, Kalvou Street,
14231, Nea Ionia,
Athens, Greece

Tel: +30 211-1027-900
Fax: +30 211-1027-999

http://gr.linkedin.com/in/manosbatsis