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

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

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 18:00:32 +0000
Message-ID: <4B043640.9040900@webr3.org>
To: Aaron Rubinstein <arubinst@library.umass.edu>
CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Aaron Rubinstein wrote:
> 
> 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 ;)

but if you need to distinguish between relations with a citation, and
those without then using each in its appropriate place may make sense..

?
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 18:01:36 UTC

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