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

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

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:51:23 -0500
Message-ID: <4B0417FB.50104@openlinksw.com>
To: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Nathan wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Apologies for the cross post; however thought this one was appropriate
> for both lists.
>
> I've developed a system which uses various web services to identify
> terms in text based content, it then matches these terms up to known
> URIs in order to make some linked data triples.
>
> The problem I'm having is how to express what the information is about
> correctly; simply using "tags" won't do.
>
> 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
>
> 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.
>
> Any feedback is most gratefully received as I'm on very limited time
> with the current project.
>
> Many Regards,
>
> Nathan / webr3
>
>   
Nathan,

foaf:topic or sioc:links_to should be fine re. items mentioned. Ditto 
any other property in an "rdfs:subPropertyOf" or 
"owl:equivalentProperty" relationship with the aforementioned, from some 
other schema/ontology.




-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 15:51:59 UTC

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