Boundaries of the CPOV

Published on: 09/03/2016
Discussion

We should be aware of what the boundaries are of the CPOV? Last meeting went also about roles/mandates and if they should be included within the core.

Maybe the scheme included could help guide the discussion somewhat?

IMHO I believe CPOV should be restricted to the upper right side of the scheme (the core itself and the formal framework). Links with location/agent/PublicService should be included, but aren't at the heart of things (see several other issues in this regard).

Component

Documentation

Category

feature
Attachments

Comments

philarcher (not verified)
Tue, 22/03/2016 - 18:30

Following the meeting on 2016-03-09 I have updated the scope section as pasted below. Note the reference to future work which is a reference to the possible future R&M vocab. Please make any amendments as you see fit!

 

The Core Public Organization Vocabulary is designed to describe the organization itself. Whilst the vocabulary may support links to descriptions of services it operates, members of staff or other resources such as relevant legislation, policies and jurisdictional coverage, it will not describe those resources in detail. Public organizations will often include elected representatives and it is clearly important to record who those elected officials are, the terms served etc. Such descriptions are out of scope for the current work although this may be the focus of future, work.  The vocabulary is not concerned with features associated with commercial entities such as shareholdings and ownership.

 

Wherever possible, the CPOV will reuse existing vocabularies and, as a result, might not define any new terms of its own. When reusing existing terms, it will define how they should be used and may suggest specific code lists to be used as values for properties.

Wed, 23/03/2016 - 15:11

No comments. I think it covers what we want to reach with CPOV. Nicely put, Phil.

philarcher (not verified)
Wed, 23/03/2016 - 18:12

Thanks Thomas, with that, I'll close the issue.

philarcher (not verified)
Thu, 14/04/2016 - 11:08

Proposed text accepted during WG meeting 2016-04-14