[Data-modeling] Non-profits, once more with feeling

Sat Aug 9 00:01:09 UTC 2008

Here's a revised model:
http://tinyurl.com/6emfhs

Note that there's an error in the schema, which is that the "designation"
property is non-unique.  I'll fix that before putting anything on
production, of course.

Note also that "registered with" is non-unique because in some countries,
orgs have to register at the state/provincial level, rather than the
national.

Let me know what you think.

Jeff 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com 
> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Prucher
> Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 3:02 PM
> To: 'Freebase data modeling mailing list'
> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Non-profits, once more with feeling
> 
> The UK and Canada definitely have their own classification 
> systems; I imagine most places do. It occurs to me that we 
> could do what they did in the business domain for "industry" 
-- there's one type ("Industry") that includes both free-form > user-entered
(or Wikipedia-extracted) topics like "Oil" and 
> also the NAICS industry hierarchy. And I think there are 
> plans to load other industrial taxonomies. So we could have a 
> "Sector" type that included NTEE-CC and other standard 
> taxonomies as well as free-form topics.
> The problem with this, though, is that as Tim points out, the 
> NTEE stuff is really non-profit specific but there might be 
> other types of organizations that have a sector.
> 
> Jeff
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
> > [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Kirrily 
> > Robert
> > Sent: Friday, August 08, 2008 2:01 PM
> > To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
> > Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Non-profits, once more with feeling
> > 
> > NTEE-CC seems to be US-only.  Do we have any thoughts on making it 
> > internationally applicable?
> > 
> > K.
> > 
> > On Aug 8, 2008, at 12:39 PM, Tim Kientzle wrote:
> > 
> > > I was indeed thinking of putting "sector" on "organization", but 
> > > that's clearly inappropriate for existing taxonomies with
> > restricted
> > > application.  It would make sense for the NTEE-CC property to be 
> > > associated with the "non-profit" tag, although I would
> > suggest being
> > > more specific with the property name: "NTEE-CC sector" 
> rather than 
> > > just "non-profit sector."
> > >
> > > Whether it makes sense to separate "endowment" properties 
> depends a 
> > > lot on the data at the other end of that link.  If there are 
> > > endowments that fund a variety of types of entities, then putting 
> > > "endowment" on an "Endowed Entity" type does simplify 
> cross-domain 
> > > queries.  I can't say I know enough about endowments to be sure.
> > >
> > > Tim
> > >
> > >
> > > On Aug 8, 2008, at 11:34 AM, Jeff Prucher wrote:
> > >
> > >> I like Faye's suggestion, too, and I'm looking into other
> > countries
> > >> to see what kind of patterns there are.  And thanks for
> > catching the
> > >> duplicate "geographic scope" property on organization.
> > >>
> > >> In terms of sector, are you proposing that it go on
> > "organization",
> > >> instead?
> > >> It's sort of the organizational equivalent to "industry",
> > so I could
> > >> imagine it going there.  (That said, taxonomies like the
> > NTEE-CC are
> > >> explicitly for non-profits, so linking to them from another type 
> > >> might be semantically weird, assuming of course that they have 
> > >> compatible licenses.) In terms of endowments, what type 
> would you 
> > >> propose putting that property on?
> > >> "Endowed
> > >> entity"?  I guess I don't see how the having an
> > "endowment" property
> > >> on the "College/University" type precludes an 
> "endowment" property 
> > >> being on "Non-profit organization".
> > >>
> > >> Jeff
> > >>
> > >>> -----Original Message-----
> > >>> From: data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com
> > >>> [mailto:data-modeling-bounces at freebase.com] On Behalf Of Tim 
> > >>> Kientzle
> > >>> Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2008 6:09 PM
> > >>> To: Freebase data modeling mailing list
> > >>> Subject: Re: [Data-modeling] Non-profits, once more with feeling
> > >>>
> > >>> Faye makes a good point.  It seems quite possible that the only 
> > >>> property of "non-profit" would be the tax framework under
> > which it's
> > >>> recognized (e.g., "US Government 501(c)(3)").  Every
> > other property
> > >>> of your proposed "non-profit" type applies to things
> > other than non-
> > >>> profits:  Harvard has an endowment, the Organization 
> type already 
> > >>> has a "Geographic scope," and there are philanthropic and/or 
> > >>> charitable organizations that are not non-profit but to
> > which your
> > >>> "non-profit sector" classification would still apply.
> > >>>
> > >>> Tim
> > >>>
> > >>> On Aug 7, 2008, at 5:15 PM, Faye Li wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Technically a non-profit is just an organization that's not 
> > >>>> commercially motivated. :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Legally though, the term has very specific definitions
> > in the US,
> > >>>> state-defined definitions, actually, which means a CA-based
> > >>> nonprofit
> > >>>> may very well not qualify as a "non-proft" under say,
> > Montana state
> > >>>> law. To sort through the state-to-state discrepancy the
> > IRS has the
> > >>>> final say on nationally recognized non-profit
> > organizations through
> > >>>> section 501(c) codes. There are over a million
> > >>>> (!) of them registered with the IRS today. Even 1% of that
> > >>> data will
> > >>>> make a nice chunk in Freebase. :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But that's besides the point, which is: a non-profit has a
> > >>> privileged
> > >>>> status which has to be qualified by the system that
> > >>> recognizes it as a
> > >>>> non-profit, much as a protected site needs to specify the
> > >>> park system
> > >>>> under which it is protected. Without that data, or at least
> > >>> a property
> > >>>> to input that data, the claim of being a non-profit
> > becomes...well,
> > >>>> unqualified, and legally weak.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Kirrily, I'll have to check out your charities domain. :)
> > >>>>
> > >>>> -- Faye
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Kirrily Robert wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Not all non-profits take donations.  However, I have
> > been modeling
> > >>>>> charities in a domain of my own (/user/skud/charities) and
> > >>> I've got
> > >>>>> properties for religious affiliation as well as geographical 
> > >>>>> focus.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> K.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Aug 7, 2008, at 3:27 PM, Alexander Marks wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> How about a Religious Affiliation property? Applies to any 
> > >>>>>> organization, I guess, but seems especially relevant for
> > >>> those that
> > >>>>>> take donations.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Al
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>>>>> From: "Jeff Prucher" <jeff at metaweb.com>
> > >>>>>> To: "Freebase data modeling mailing list"
> > >>>>>> <data-modeling at freebase.com
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, August 7, 2008 9:24:29 PM (GMT) Europe/London
> > >>>>>> Subject: [Data-modeling] Non-profits, once more with feeling
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I sent a note about this a couple weeks ago, and received no 
> > >>>>>> responses. I'm figuring that either things are slow
> > because it's
> > >>>>>> summer (in the Northern Hemisphere anyway) or that nobody
> > >>> cares much
> > >>>>>> about this schema one way or another.  Just in case it's
> > >>> the former,
> > >>>>>> I'm reposting my non-profit organization schema to
> > >>> sandbox; if it's
> > >>>>>> for the latter reason, I'll go ahead and upload the
> > schema at my
> > >>>>>> leisure. :)
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>> 
> > https://sandbox.freebase.com/type/view/organization/non_profit_organ
> > >>>>>> ization
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> It's pretty basic; it includes the types Organization
> > (to get the
> > >>>>>> board members and parent/child organizations, among other
> > >>> things),
> > >>>>>> and Employer.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Jeff Prucher
> > >>>>>> Type Librarian & Ontologist
> > >>>>>> Metaweb Technologies, Inc.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> Data-modeling mailing list
> > >>>>>> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> > >>>>>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>>>> Data-modeling mailing list
> > >>>>>> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> > >>>>>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> _______________________________________________
> > >>>> Data-modeling mailing list
> > >>>> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> > >>>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> > >>>
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> Data-modeling mailing list
> > >>> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> > >>> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Data-modeling mailing list
> > >> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> > >> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Data-modeling mailing list
> > > Data-modeling at freebase.com
> > > http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> > 
> > --
> > Kirrily Robert
> > Freebase Community Director
> > kirrily at metaweb.com
> > http://freebase.com/
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > Data-modeling mailing list
> > Data-modeling at freebase.com
> > http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> > 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Data-modeling mailing list
> Data-modeling at freebase.com
> http://lists.freebase.com/mailman/listinfo/data-modeling
> 