Re: Org. Namespace Example
I like this: The sloping shore along a body of water that is washed by waves or tides and is usually covered by sand or gravel (coast, shore, strand). Michael A. Norton From: Gannon Dick gannon_d...@yahoo.com To: egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org Sent: Wed, June 23, 2010 2:52:29 PM Subject: Org. Namespace Example The Feature Class Definition page of the USGS (GNIS) search [1] provides a nice example for the Government Work subclass of the Organization Name Space. The Mash-up (Class Definitions) is composed of Natural and Man Made (under human control) types. An RDF/XML example for each type is below: xmlns:db=http://dbpedia.org/page/; xmlns:pii=http://purl.org/pii/terms/; xmlns:dct=http://purl.org/dc/terms/; xmlns:org=http://www.w3.org/ns/org#; org:Organization dct:title xml:lang=enBeach/dct:title dct:subject xml:lang=enBeach/dct:subject dct:subject xml:lang=enCoast/dct:subject dct:subject xml:lang=enShore/dct:subject dct:subject xml:lang=enStrand/dct:subject org:Role /rdf:Description /org:Role org:purpose The sloping shore along a body of water that is washed by waves or tides and is usually covered by sand or gravel (coast, shore, strand). /org:purpose /rdf:Description /org:Organization /rdf:Description /rdf:RDF rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf=http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#; xmlns:db=http://dbpedia.org/page/; xmlns:pii=http://purl.org/pii/terms/; xmlns:dct=http://purl.org/dc/terms/; xmlns:org=http://www.w3.org/ns/org#; rdf:Description rdf:about=http://dbpedia.org/page/Map; org:Organization rdf:Description rdf:about=http://dbpedia.org/page/Resource; dct:title xml:lang=enBridge/dct:title dct:subject xml:lang=enBridge/dct:subject dct:subject xml:lang=enCauseway/dct:subject dct:subject xml:lang=enOverpass/dct:subject dct:subject xml:lang=enTrestle/dct:subject org:Role /rdf:Description /org:Role org:purpose Man made structure carrying a trail, road, or other transportation system across a body of water or depression (causeway, overpass, trestle). /org:purpose /rdf:Description /org:Organization /rdf:Description /rdf:RDF --Gannon [1] http://geonames.usgs.gov/pls/gnispublic/
Re: Organization ontology
I can see Manos' point. It seems that LegalEntity rather the Organization would work well under a sub-domain such as .LAW or .DOJ or .SEC, but under other sub-domains such as .NASA, the Organization element might be better served as ProjectName. All instances would help specify the Organization type, while keeping Organization as the general unstylized element is probably ideal, as inferred by William Waites. Michael A. Norton From: Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) ma...@abiss.gr a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called LegalEntity to be more precise.
Re: Organization ontology
Indeed. But isn't the case that for every single website, there is a single LegalEntity to attach it to, use cases otherwise paired downward on the spectrum--or attributed to--after that? Michael A. Norton From: Patrick Logan patrickdlo...@gmail.com To: Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com Cc: public-egov...@w3.org; Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; William Waites william.wai...@okfn.org; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; William Waites ww-keyword-okfn.193...@styx.org; Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) ma...@abiss.gr Sent: Mon, June 7, 2010 4:50:03 PM Subject: Re: Organization ontology Large corporations often have multiple legal entities and many informal, somewhat overlapping business organizations. Just saying. I wrangled with that. There're several different use cases for these for internal vs external, customer/vendor, financial vs operations, etc. On Jun 7, 2010 3:19 PM, Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com wrote: I can see Manos' point. It seems that LegalEntity rather the Organization would work well under a sub-domain such as .LAW or .DOJ or .SEC, but under other sub-domains such as .NASA, the Organization element might be better served as ProjectName. All instances would help specify the Organization type, while keeping Organization as the general unstylized element is probably ideal, as inferred by William Waites. Michael A. Norton From: Emmanouil Batsis (Manos) ma...@abiss.gr a) the way i get FormalOrganization, it could as well be called LegalEntity to be more precise
[no subject]
Or, in the U.S. we could just partition a new web with top level domains reflective of the agencies and departments financed by our tax dollars. Open Gov!Michael A. NortonFrom: Chris Beer ch...@e-beer.net.auTo: Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.comCc: Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; "public-egov...@w3.org" public-egov...@w3.orgSent: Tue, June 1, 2010 10:22:12 PMSubject: Re: Organization ontology Good point!Sent from my iPhoneOn 02/06/2010, at 15:06, "Stuart A. Yeates" syea...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been built into it. What would be great would be to see a handful of different organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions modelled. Maybe: * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some control after they leave office * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly appears to sit above a formal constitution cheers stuart
Re: Organization ontology
Get Kurzweil to do it! Michael A. Norton From: Chris Beer ch...@e-beer.net.au To: Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com Cc: Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com; Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 10:49:57 PM Subject: Re: Organization ontology Cool! Let me know when that's ready. End of the week ok? ;P lol Sent from my iPhone On 02/06/2010, at 15:47, Mike Norton xsideofparad...@yahoo.com wrote: Or, in the U.S. we could just partition a new web with top level domains reflective of the agencies and departments financed by our tax dollars. Open Gov! Michael A. Norton From: Chris Beer ch...@e-beer.net.au To: Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com Cc: Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com; Linked Data community public-lod@w3.org; public-egov...@w3.org public-egov...@w3.org Sent: Tue, June 1, 2010 10:22:12 PM Subject: Re: Organization ontology Good point! Sent from my iPhone On 02/06/2010, at 15:06, Stuart A. Yeates syea...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 1, 2010 at 7:50 PM, Dave Reynolds dave.e.reyno...@googlemail.com wrote: We would like to announce the availability of an ontology for description of organizational structures including government organizations. This was motivated by the needs of the data.gov.uk project. After some checking we were unable to find an existing ontology that precisely met our needs and so developed this generic core, intended to be extensible to particular domains of use. [1] http://www.epimorphics.com/public/vocabulary/org.html I think this is great, but I'm a little worried that a number of Western (and specifically Westminister) assumptions may have been built into it. What would be great would be to see a handful of different organisations (or portions of them) from different traditions modelled. Maybe: * The tripartite system at the top of US government, which seems pretty complex to me, with former Presidents apparently retaining some control after they leave office * The governance model of the Vatican City and Catholic Church * The Asian royalty model, in which an informal royalty commonly appears to sit above a formal constitution cheers stuart
