- From: Aaron Rubinstein <arubinst@library.umass.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 12:49:41 -0500
- To: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
- CC: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, nathan@webr3.org, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Niklas Lindström wrote: > 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 > I believe it's the other way around, which would make dct:references ideal in every way ;) Aaron
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 17:50:52 UTC