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 10:53:03 -0500
Message-ID: <4B04185F.6000509@openlinksw.com>
To: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com
CC: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
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  :-)

-- 


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 15:53:38 UTC

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