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

Re: [pedantic-web] Which Ontologies to use for..

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:50:21 +0100
Message-ID: <cf8107640911180750r1c2623a0y36204f3e6dbc0014@mail.gmail.com>
To: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com
Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
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
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 15:51:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:20:54 UTC