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

Niklas Lindström wrote:
> 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
> 

I believe it's the other way around, which would make dct:references 
ideal in every way ;)

Aaron

Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 17:50:52 UTC