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

Kingsley Idehen wrote:
> 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  :-)
> 

had this conversation a minute ago with bill roberts about "references"
(who suggested the same thing) and I came to the conclusion that I'd be
using it more for noting external in line links and for related resources..

like if it references/cites a couple of reports, of for where we'd
typically use [1] in an email [2]; or for items you'd see under a
"related resources" h2 heading - if you follow;

perhaps I'm wrong? - and perhaps I just realised I'm mixing up URI and
URLs again.. but then if an article / book has a URI and that's what I
mark as a dc:reference then..

?!

thanks

Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 16:03:10 UTC