Re: Proposal for Organization Sector

On 06/07/2014 03:39 PM, Thad Guidry wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 7, 2014 at 2:40 AM, Niklas Lindström <
> <>> wrote:
>     Hi Thad,
>     Sounds like a good idea.
>     How about seeking a relation to the W3C Organization Ontology [1]
>     (as well as Freebase, of course, if it brings more to the table).
>     For this specific matter, would either 'purpose' [2]
> The org:purpose description is not 100% applicable as currently worded,
> if it were tweaked and re-worded then it could be... this is what it
> says currently: "but the nature of an organization is to have a reason
> for existence and this property is a means to document that reason."
> <> sells things for Babies &
> Toddlers ... or they are in the sector of "Baby & Toddler" or purpose of
> "Baby" and "Toddler".. whatever the property name ends up being, it
> should have this kind of definition:
> sector/purpose/competitive_space : " The sectors, purposes, or
> competitive spaces that this person or organization primarily concerns
> itself with. Ex. "Human Rights", "Pets", "Automotive Tires" "
>     or 'classification' [3] be applicable?
> No classification property uses the idea of "class of thing" ... which
> is actually harder to find well fitting SKOS Concepts, and instead you
> end up with more terms like, "Human Rights Activist/Org", "Pet Store",
> "Automotive Tire Store", instead of the above SKOS Concepts / Literature
> Subjects, with my example definition. has "class of things"
> with Types...and that is the anti-pattern for this proposal, where we do
> not want to have to resort to creating millions of sub Types, but
> instead allow sector/purpose/competitive_space kind of a property to
> allow further metadata to auto-expand (much like meta: "keywords" in
> HTML, but requiring a URL that defines the
> sector/purpose/competitive_space.  ISIC4 and NAICS do an OK job and we
> have properties for those already, but ISIC4 and NAICS often lack many
> of the narrower concepts that webmasters & organizations need, so
> external vocabularies.
>     (By "seeking a relation", I (as usual) specifically mean
>     cherry-picking terms from existing vocabularies, possibly relabel
>     the imports to fit the <> naming scheme,
>     and explicitly linking the two using RDFS and/or OWL in the RDF
>     description of <>, to document this
>     relation precisely, thus enabling humans and simpler machines alike
>     to connect the dots.)
> org:purpose is a likely candidate for that, but again, I have concerns
> around the current definition of it.  How to fix ?  How to absorb while
> broadening the meaning or tweaking it for usage ?

Since we discuss cherry picking from The Organization Ontology i think
pinging its editor - Dave Reynolds (in cc) -  might make sense :)

Maybe also worth creating mapping for Organization and adding it to list
on via

Received on Saturday, 7 June 2014 15:44:24 UTC