Working Group meeting
Date: 17/01/2023
Participants: Jana Ahmad, Natalie Muric, Pietro Palermo, Thomas Pettersson, Giampaolo Sellito, Emidio Stani, Ivan Willer
Model editor: Andreea Pasăre
Note editor: Eugeniu Costetchi
Discussion
-
Org ontology link: https://www.w3.org/TR/vocab-org/
Core Vocabularies observations
-
epo:hasOrganisationUnit should be an attribute on the OrganisationalUnit concept from org ontology.
-
If we follow org ontology we need to add a new class where to put only an attribute for the name.
-
The reason why we conflated these two is the case when only a particular unit is the Buyer.
-
Recommendation to not separate these two concepts (Organisation and Organisation Unit) and only rename the attribute to epo:hasOrganisationUnitName
-
Why? Because the Agent that takes a role (e.g. Buyer) can be a Unit or an organisation, but we decided to set the description at the “organisation level”.
-
-
epo:hasLegalFormType - from SEMIC perspective we asked the OP to create the Core Vocabulary for the classification of the legal forms from GLEIF:
-
This will be published in the future.
-
Switch to using a code list for legal type classifications.
-
cv:LegalEntity versus epo:Business
Definition for cv:LegalEntity:
A self-empoyed person, company, or organization that has legal rights and obligations.
Definition for epo:Business:
A private law company registered in a national registry.
-
epo:Business should be a subclass of cv:LegalEntity in Core Business Vocabulary.
-
In order to align with Core Voc, it means we need to add cv:LegalEntity and org:FormalOrganization between org:Organization and epo:Business.
-
But a Business has to be a FormalOrganization.
-
In CPOV, a PublicOrganisation is not org:FormalOrganisation, but it is directly under org:Organisation.