aidig
commented
3 years ago Agree. Have described similar considerations in other issues.
- Regarding comment 1) The term 'legal entity' see https://github.com/SEMICeu/CPOV/issues/12#issuecomment-858667304
- Regarding comment 2) CPOV-Core Business overlap: see https://github.com/SEMICeu/Core-Person-Vocabulary/issues/6#issuecomment-844060268
EmidioStani
This is a general comment. A Business is once again an organisation. What changes is the legalForm type and the way probably in which it is identified and classified because in one case there the public law that applies and in the other the private law.
However, the two Core vocs have a different granularity of modelling. In this Core Business Vocabulary, there is no indication of possible change events that may happen for businesses too, there is a different way to model the address (here there is registeredAddress property but in CPOV there is address), there is no mention of contact points, there is no idea of the structure of the business in terms of departments.
This makes me think also to: 1) the name used here, i.e., "LegalEntity". Also a PublicOrganisation is a LegalEntity in the general sense, because it is established according to some (public) law. BTW,. there is an attempt to clarify this in the definition of LegalEntity. Therefore, I am not so sure if LegalEntity is a good term. In the epo ontology we tried to model Organisation and then specialize it in PublicOrganisation and Business (this latter term is also used in the SDG model), where business represents a private organisation registered in a business registry. With the general Organisation concept you also may capture all those cases that fall under the definition "Many organisations exist that are not Legal Entities" that you report. 2) CPOV and Core Business share potentially many things because in both cases we are speaking about Organisation (as it is in Org ontology indeed).
Owing to these two comments, probably a discussion about the role of these two vocs can be further done.