- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 10:51:23 -0500
- 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