Re: w3.org/ns/opengov

Hi Daniel,

Your message did end up being copied to this list, but it was back in April: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-opengov/2015Apr/0010.html <https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-opengov/2015Apr/0010.html>

Yes, please re-use Popolo where possible, and please let me know what you think needs to be extended. Popolo is not written in stone.

There is no OWL yet, but the ontology is not very large, and everything is documented on the website. If you need to create an OWL file   for Popolo for your own purposes, I’d be happy to post it on the website.

In terms of using the W3C namespace or your own namespace, I will try now to advance things with Phil so that we don’t have any unnecessary duplication.

In terms of your ontology:
1. For relations, why are you not using http://vocab.org/relationship/ <http://vocab.org/relationship/> ? It has ancestorOf, childOf, descendantOf, parentOf, siblingOf, spouseOf.
2. Elective_Office seems similar to org:Post, and Member_Role seems similar to org:Membership. Have you had a look at http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/> ? Popolo reuses the ORG ontology extensively. I think you can subclass those classes and add any new properties that you need. For example, there’s org:memberDuring instead of :start and :end, org:postIn instead of :electedTo, org:heldBy instead of :officeHolder, org:subOrganizationOf for :isPartOf, org:hasSite for :region.
3. I’m not sure why there are these three properties for relating a Person to an Organization: :isAfilliated Political_Party, :isMemberOf Caucus, :isAppointedTo Organization… Semantically, are they at all different? I don’t think there needs to be a new property for each subclass of Organization.
4. In Popolo, we use gn:Feature instead of schema:Place, because gn:Feature has properties for identifiers (e.g. the numeric code of an electoral district) and for classifications (e.g. “ward”, “province”, etc.), which schema:Place lacks.
5. Why is electoral_domicile snake-case instead of camel-case like others? Same with the class names with underscores.

If you re-use rel: and org: I think your ontology can be much more narrow and focused.

Hope this helps!

James

> On Nov 18, 2015, at 10:28 AM, Daniel Schwabe <dschwabe@inf.puc-rio.br> wrote:
> 
> Hi James,
> my message was sent to the SW Public List, and the public-lod list (https://goo.gl/sUoQAn). But the important point is that we have made contact (thanks Phil!).
> I am involved in converting and publishing LD about the Brazilian Congress, and votes in the House of Representatives - extracted from their XML and CSV published data.
> In addition (and this is the focus of the initiative), we are also adding several kinds of direct (e.g., parent/child) and indirect (worked together/under) relations between congressmen and senators. All of this data is being published with explicit provenance information, and the goal is to allow people to add their information in a “wikipedia” style.
> We have already drafted a “Parliament Ontology” , which is more detailed than what is included in Popolo especially wrt the aforementioned relations. A provisional version can be found in http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~rmagalhaes/projetos/ParliamentOntology.ttl
> As we are in the process of triplifying the votes and voting process, we would like to (re)use Popolo as much as possible, as it seems to capture most of what we need. We may have to extend it a bit, but this is the usual case anyway.
> However, when we tried to get a formal spec of the ontology (e.g., by de-referencing the “opengov” namespace url, we didn’t get anything - and now it has become clear why.
> Would you have this ontology specified in OWL somewhere? We can certainly understand the intent from the Popolo documentation, but as it stands, we are just re using the terms within our own namespace.
> TIA for any help you can give us!
> Best
> Daniel
> 
>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 13:07  - 18/11/15, James McKinney <james@slashpoundbang.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Phil,
>> 
>> I checked the archives, but I could not find Daniel Schwabe’s message. Was it made to another list?
>> 
>> I had been using that namespace as a placeholder with the intention of eventually following up about its use. (To my knowledge, everyone is using Popolo as plain JSON and not taking advantage of any RDF features, so nothing relies on the namespace at the moment.) I chose that namespace because my understanding of the terms for W3C Community Groups is that an identically-named namespace can be made available. However, I haven’t spoken to anyone at W3C about it. So, let this be the start of that discussion! What are the next steps?
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> 
>> James
>> 
>>> On Nov 18, 2015, at 10:00 AM, Phil Archer <phila@w3.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> James,
>>> 
>>> As you may recall from his postings on this list a few weeks back, Daniel Schwabe is looking into using the Popolo vocabulary. He's brought my attention to your/Popolo's use of a w3.org namespace that doesn't dereference, i.e. www.w3.org/ns/opengov
>>> 
>>> We can probably help with that, i.e. we could potentially host the vocabulary, but we'd need to go through a few hoops to get there. Can you please fill me in on how the use of this namespace has come about? Did you talk to anyone at W3C about it? I want to be helpful and support the work you/this community is doing as it's clearly valuable but in order to do that, we need to work together.
>>> 
>>> Thanks
>>> 
>>> Phil.
>>> 
>>> --
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Phil Archer
>>> W3C Data Activity Lead
>>> http://www.w3.org/2013/data/
>>> 
>>> http://philarcher.org
>>> +44 (0)7887 767755
>>> @philarcher1
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Schwabe                      Dept. de Informatica, PUC-Rio
> Tel:+55-21-3527 1500 r. 4356        R. M. de S. Vicente, 225
> Fax: +55-21-3527 1530               Rio de Janeiro, RJ 22453-900, Brasil
> http://www.inf.puc-rio.br/~dschwabe
> 
> 
> 
> 
>