Registered Organization Vocabulary


Title
Registered Organization Vocabulary
URI
http://www.w3.org/ns/regorg
Description
This is a vocabulary for describing organizations that have gained legal entity status through a formal registration process, typically in a national or regional register. It focuses solely on such organizations and excludes natural persons, virtual organizations and other types of legal entity or 'agent' that are able to act. It is a profile of the more flexible and comprehensive Organization Ontology [ ORG ].
Languages
English
Ontology languages
OWL
Ontology format
Turtle RDF/XML
Version
Second version in w3.org/ns
Alignments
See alignments

See more information about this ontology in Linked Open Vocabularies.

Evaluation results

The following evaluation results have been generated by the RESTFul web service provided by OOPS! (OntOlogy Pitfall Scanner!).

OOPS! logoIt is obvious that not all the pitfalls are equally important; their impact in the ontology will depend on multiple factors. For this reason, each pitfall has an importance level attached indicating how important it is. We have identified three levels:

Critical
It is crucial to correct the pitfall. Otherwise, it could affect the ontology consistency, reasoning, applicability, etc.
Important
Though not critical for ontology function, it is important to correct this type of pitfall.
Minor
It is not really a problem, but by correcting it we will make the ontology nicer.

Ontology terms lack annotations properties. This kind of properties improves the ontology understanding and usability from a user point of view.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

The ontology lacks disjoint axioms between classes or between properties that should be defined as disjoint. For example, we can create the classes "Odd" and "Even" (or the classes "Prime" and "Composite") without being disjoint; such representation is not correct based on the definition of these types of numbers.

*This pitfall applies to the ontology in general instead of specific elements

Relationships and/or attributes without domain or range (or none of them) are included in the ontology. There are situations in which the relation is very general and the range should be the most general concept "Thing". However, in other cases, the relations are more specific and it could be a good practice to specify its domain and/or range. An example of this type of pitfall is to create the relationship "hasWritten" in an ontology about art in which the relationship domain should be "Writer" and the relationship range should be "LiteraryWork". This pitfall is related to the common error when defining ranges and domains described in [3].

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

This pitfall appears when a relationship (except for the symmetric ones) has not an inverse relationship defined within the ontology. For example, the case in which the ontology developer omits the inverse definition between the relations "hasLanguageCode" and "isCodeOf", or between "hasReferee" and "isRefereeOf".

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

A resource is used as a class, e.g. appearing as the object of an "rdf:type", "rdfs:domain", or "rdfs:range" statement, or as the subject or object of an "rdfs:subClassOf" statement, without having been declared as a Class.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

A resource is used as a property, e.g. appearing as the subject or object of an "rdfs:subPropertyOf" statement, without having been declared as a "rdf:Property" or some subclass of it.

This pitfall affects to the following ontology elements:

References: