Re: Ontology design for UK Parliament

On 24/08/2016, 22:19, "Peter Krantz" <peter@peterkrantz.se> wrote:

>ons 24 aug. 2016 kl 22:37 skrev Michael Smethurst <michaeljsmethurst@gmail.com>:
> 
>
> But we'd also like to collaborate on this with other Parliaments and with the wider community so that it can be reused by others. We'd like to map any terms defined by our ontology to public vocabularies where possible. And work with schema.org <http://schema.org> eg (alongside other parliaments) to expand their descriptions (again where possible).
>
>
>
>This sounds excellent. Is there a generic parliament process that could be modeled and used similar to how dublin core to inherit from when creating national implementations with all the specifics?

Hi Peter

I think the short answer is we don’t know yet. We’re attempting to work with the Inter-Parliamentary Union [1] to contact folks in other parliaments to see what we have in common / what’s different

there seems to be a feeling amongst people who know far more about this than me that there will be a decent level of overlap at a fairly detailed level between Commonwealth parliaments. We’ve contacted the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association [2] to try to start that conversation there

We’ve also been having conversations with the US House of Representatives who share a similar interest in expanding schema.org to be more comprehensive over their procedures / outputs. I’ve invited people from there to this group / list

Suspect one of the problems will be where procedure in different parliaments started from the same point but forked in meaning over time. Or changed meaning even in the same jurisdiction. So guess we’ll need to be careful to get the right levels of abstraction in and not assume that things with the same name are the same thing

All interesting stuff to learn about I guess ☺

Michael

[1] http://www.ipu.org/english/home.htm
[2] http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/
>
>Regards,
>
>Peter
>
>

Received on Friday, 26 August 2016 15:26:16 UTC