- From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:34:10 +0100
- To: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > Kingsley Idehen wrote: >> Niklas Lindström wrote: >>> Hi Nathan! >>> >>> >>>> So let's say I run an article of content through called "Deforestation >>>> and Competing Water Uses" >>>> >>>> the main subjects of the article are: >>>> >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Deforestation >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Reforestation >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Soil_conservation >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Silt (siltation) >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Aberdare_Range >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tana_River_%28Kenya%29 >>>> >>>> which is fine, they are dc:subject / foaf:topic etc >>>> >>> >>> Sounds good. >>> >>> >>>> but then the article is under the general topics of: >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Adaptation_to_global_warming >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Kenya >>>> >>>> and it mentions: >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Sustainable_forest_management >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Afforestation >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Hydropower >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Municipal_water_supply >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Life_span >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Soil >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Forestry >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Plant >>>> + http://dbpedia.org/resource/Reservoir >>>> >>>> From the aspect of the seeker, these "mentions" are invaluable - if I >>>> was doing a report on issues affection reservoirs in kenya, then this >>>> data is most valuable and thus related. >>>> >>>> so, which ontology is most suited for this case of "mentions"? it's not >>>> a subject or a tag, and don't want to identify the data as such as that >>>> is misleading and could be easily misrepresented within UIs if it were. >>>> >>> >>> How about dct:references <http://purl.org/dc/terms/references>? >>> Defined as "A related resource that is referenced, cited, or otherwise >>> pointed to by the described resource.", I figure it is about as >>> generic as any "unlabelled" hypertext link. >>> >>> Best regards, >>> Niklas >>> >>> >> Ah! yes, that's even better that my sioc:links_to and foaf:topic >> suggestions :-) >> > > perhaps dct:relation is more suited? > > dct:Relation > A related resource. > > dct:References > A related resource that is referenced, cited, or otherwise pointed to by > the described resource. > > thoughts? Ah, yes, better still! The dct:relation is a subPropertyOf dct:references, so that seems to be the "most" generic one. And Dublin Core is nicely generic, so I doubt you'd imply anything unintended by using dct:relation. Best regards, Niklas
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 17:35:03 UTC