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

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

From: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:34:10 +0100
Message-ID: <cf8107640911180934y69babbb5m16f33dc6447683ef@mail.gmail.com>
To: pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, nathan@webr3.org
Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
On Wed, Nov 18, 2009 at 5:10 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote:
> 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?

Ah, yes, better still! The dct:relation is a subPropertyOf
dct:references, so that seems to be the "most" generic one. And Dublin
Core is nicely generic, so I doubt you'd imply anything unintended by
using dct:relation.

Best regards,
Niklas
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 17:35:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:16:01 UTC