Re: Using DBpedia resources as skos:Concepts?

Hi Ross!

Exactly. It is a good example of the usage of umbel:linksEntity. so, it 
links a concept to a related (in terms of aboutness) individual.

So, with these two properties, we have the usecases for: "Concept -> 
Individual" and "Individual -> Concept"

Additionally, you have other properties that handle other usecases such as:

(1) umbel:isLike (Individual -> Individual). You can also reify a 
likelihood weight by reifying the umbel:withLikelihood property)
(2) umbel:isAligned and umbel:linksConcept (Class -> SubjectConcept and 
SubjectConcept -> Class ; and you can reify an alignement weight with 
the umbel:isAligned property).


So, as you cited bellow, the goal is to assert "aboutness and 
likelihood" relationship between: individuals, classes and subject concepts.

So, umbel has two major components: (1) a graph of subject concepts (its 
usage is discussed at length in the documentation) and (2) an ontology 
that relates inviduals and classes to subject concepts (usecases 
discussed in this thread).

http://umbel.org/technical_documentation.html

A new version of the subject concepts framework will be released soon 
(v0.73)


Thanks!


Take care,

Fred
> Is this the sort of scenario where umbel comes into play?  If so, I
> might start understanding what exactly umbel is.
>
> Given what I can parse from the documentation (hairnet over the
> basketball and everything) is that:
> <http://mydataset/433256>
>   a skosConcept;
>   umbel:linksEntity <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama>;
>
> might work.  The definition of linksEntity is this:
>
> Property name:  umbel:linksEntity
>
> Description:  Check the definition of umbel:isAbout for the definition
> of this property; linksEntity is the inverse property of isAbout.
>
> Domain:  umbel:SubjectConcept
>
> Range: owl:Thing
>
> Inverse-of: umbel:isAbout
>
> with umbel:isAbout being:
>
> Property name:  umbel:isAbout
>
> Description:  The property umbel:isAbout is used to assert the
> relation between a named entity (individual) and a subject concept
> class. umbel:isAbout relates the named entity (individual) to the
> class through the basis of its subject matter. The relation
> acknowledges that the scope of the class can not be determined solely
> by the aggregation or extent of its associated individual entity
> members, and that the nature of the subject concept class may not
> alone bound or define the individual entity.
>
> Named entities may be related with multiple subject concept classes.
> The domain of umbel:isAbout defines its class description as the class
> of all individuals (owl:Thing) and its range as the class of subject
> concepts (umbel:SubjectConcept), thereby bounding the property's
> proper semantics of associating individuals to their related subject
> concept class(es).
>
> This property is therefore used to create a topical assertion between
> an individual and a subject concept.
>
> Domain: owl:Thing
>
> Range: umbel:SubjectConcept
>
> an umbel:SubjectConcept is a subclass of a skos:Concept.
>
> If this -is- how that's supposed to work, it seems like a work around
> the "aboutness" vs. "isness" issue.
>
> -Ross.
>
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:56 PM, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de> wrote:
>   
>> Hi,
>>
>> I want to get some broader feedback and opinion on this question.
>>
>> There is a use case where an external dataset is modelled in SKOS, and we
>> want to map it to DBpedia. Something like:
>>
>> <http://mydataset/433256>
>>    a skos:Concept;
>>    owl:sameAs <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama>;
>>    .
>>
>> I've used owl:sameAs here. Now the problem is that my:433256 is a
>> skos:Concept, while dbp:Michelle_Obama is a foaf:Person. I wonder wether
>> that's a problem. I can't see any immediate contradiction arising from that,
>> but I'm uncertain.
>>
>> Another option would be to use skos:closeMatch or skos:exactMatch, but these
>> are intended for use between skos:Concepts, while I'm trying to connect a
>> skos:Concept to a foaf:Person.
>>
>> The main question, I guess, is wether people in the DBpedia project would
>> consider the assertion
>>
>>    <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Michelle_Obama> a skos:Concept .
>>
>> to be acceptable or erroneous, or wether SKOS folks tell me that
>> skos:Concept is obviously disjoint from foaf:Person.
>>
>> I know that this is a complex issue, so I'm not really looking for a "right"
>> or "wrong" answer. I'm more interested in getting all the pros and cons and
>> pitfalls and caveats on the table, so please, if you have any opinion on the
>> issue, I want to hear it.
>>
>> I'm cc'ing Pat Hayes, because he said he's interested in that kind of
>> question.
>>
>> All the best and thanks for your time,
>> Richard
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Linked Data Technologist • Linked Data Research Centre
>> Digital Enterprise Research Institute (DERI), NUI Galway, Ireland
>> http://linkeddata.deri.ie/
>> skype:richard.cyganiak
>> tel:+353-91-49-5711
>>
>>
>>
>>     
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 November 2009 13:23:02 UTC