Re: Organizations changing status
On 06/08/2010 01:17 PM, William Waites wrote: On 10-06-07 23:03, Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) wrote: b) what happens when organizations change legal status? I'm not certain but I don't think this ever really happens. In practice the old organisation ceases to exist and a new one comes into being possibly with a period of overlap. They may share the same name and informally be referred to as the same but technically they are different organisations. Not necessarily in cases I had in mind, for example a general partnership may actually evolve into a public company. Within the context of local legislation, such a change may not accept an old new org logic. This actually makes sense not only within a legal perspective but within an operational as well, where it is only the type of the organization that changes. Everything else, including VAT number, pending financial or other transactions etc. are not affected. -- 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 attachment: manos.vcf
Re: Organization types predicates vs classes
On 06/08/2010 01:21 PM, William Waites wrote: On 10-06-08 04:27, Todd Vincent wrote: By adding OrganizationType to the Organization data model, you provide the ability to modify the type of organization and can then represent both (legal) entities and (legally unrecognized) organizations. :foo rdf:type SomeKindOfOrganisation . vs. :foo org:organisationType SomeKindOfOrganisation . I don't really see the need for an extra predicate with almost identical semantics to rdf:type. There is nothing stopping a subject from having more than one type. Got mixed feelings on this. On one hand, this would work well with existing code or whatnot. A new prop however offers the ability to limit the domain, which always guides people to the light and all. -- 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 attachment: manos.vcf
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 attachment: manos.vcf
