- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 16:10:53 +0000
- To: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- CC: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
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 :-) > perhaps dct:relation is more suited? dct:Relation A related resource. dct:References A related resource that is referenced, cited, or otherwise pointed to by the described resource. thoughts?
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 16:18:27 UTC