W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-esw-thes@w3.org > November 2009

Re: [Dbpedia-discussion] Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

From: Ross Singer <rossfsinger@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:48:34 -0500
Message-ID: <23b83f160911120748j60af00b6sfa7a69bdc1a0a122@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Cc: SKOS <public-esw-thes@w3.org>, Mike Bergman <mike@mkbergman.com>
On Thu, Nov 12, 2009 at 10:34 AM, Bernard Vatant
<bernard.vatant@mondeca.com> wrote:

> Thanks for this. Indeed umbel:linksEntity seems to fill the slot.
> Although I find its name, as well as the one of its inverse property
> umbel:isAbout, quite misleading.

Well, personally, I find almost everything about the vocabulary to be
obtuse.  When your elevator pitch has something about a hairnet over a
basketball you're not exactly explaining why I would care or how I
would use it.

> How about something like umbel:hasReferent and umbel:isReferentOf ,
> respectively?

I prefer those terms, yes, but I have nothing to do with vocabulary.
>
> BTW do you have any feedback on the use of this property in the wild?

No.  I use it simply because I don't know of a better solution (see:
http://purl.org/NET/marccodes/languages/amh#lang or the proposal of
lcsubjects.org to dbpedia here:
http://dilettantes.code4lib.org:37341/30000) but I can't vouch for
whether or not people find it useful or even know that it exists

I thought dbpedia used to have umbel predicates in it, but I can't
find any at the moment.

-Ross.
Received on Thursday, 12 November 2009 15:49:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:39:05 GMT