The ORG ontology says: "It is expected that profiles of this vocabulary will constrain the range of org:purpose. Alternative names:remit, responsibility (esp. if applied to OrganizationalUnits such as Government Departments)."
So this looks like the appropriate terms to use to link an organisation to its COFOG code(s).
ORG also defines org:classification as a sub property of skos:notation and therefore this should be filled with a typed literal. CPSV's type property seems to do a similar job.
Do we need to include either cpsv:type or org:classificatoin in CPOV? If so, what would it be used for?
Component
DocumentationCategory
feature
Login or create an account to comment.
Comments
There seems to be a mistake here. The property org:classification is not a subproperty of skos:notation. Did you meen to write org:identifier?
/Peter
org:classification is useful in addition to org:purpose, e.g. in Parliament, it's useful to distinguish the parliament from the chambers from the committees. In the public service, it's similarly useful to distinguish departments from crown corporations from other public entities. org:classification is fit for this use.
I shouldn't include cpsv:type in the CPOV. In practice, you could attribute a type of public service to a public org, but isn't it better to relate public org's to public services that, in their turn, are categorized in types?
We could use org:classification on the other hand. Either for a very practical use as in defining which organizations are using which applications (often, but not always, defined by some legal framework) or e.g. to distinguish between government level (local, regional, federal, in-between, ...?).
Off course, we should guard the proper use of the terms and concepts.
Should org:classification be used to denote eg the COFOG-codes in which a public organization operates? Or isn't that rather a subclass of 'cpov:organisation' (yet to be defined) since it's intrinsic to the nature of the org?
To be honest, I 'm not sure which would be the better...
For information in "EU Whoiswho" we use "org:classification" with a range "euvoc:OrganizationType" from the "Organization Type" Authority List ( http://publications.europa.eu/mdr/authority/organization-type/index.html )
Oops, you are right, Peter, org:classification is not a sub prop of skos:notation (and org:identifier is).
James - I'd say that the chambers and subcommittees are Organisational Units (and therefore are themselves organisations). It's a trade off whether we need to define a bunch of types of organisation or use org:classification. The latter is probably simpler as you suggest.
The OP's use of org:classification to link to euvoc:OrganizationType seems sensible but limited - the list only includes EU institution types and wouldn't, for example, cover sub committees and parliamentary chambers.
OK, org:classification looks like it should be 'in'
And I'll take cpsv:type out unless someone screams
OK. I can live with that (org:classification in and cpsv:type out)
+1 Phil, let's keep org:classification, as it seems more suitable in this context. I agree that OP's Organisation Type NAL is limited, but then again, I guess that in the CPOV we are not going to refer to specific codelists, right?
This was discussed in the meeting on 2016-02-15, see https://joinup.ec.europa.eu/asset/cpov/document/cpov-wg-virtual-meeting…
We will keep classification and purpose but not type. The classification may use the Eurovoc classification if relevant but this won't always be the case.