- From: Aaron Rubinstein <arubinst@library.umass.edu>
- Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 13:19:55 -0500
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- CC: Niklas Lindström <lindstream@gmail.com>, pedantic-web@googlegroups.com, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>
Nathan wrote: > 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.. > > ? > It's my impression that dct:relation would be too generic a property. It's a little tough without a domain and range specified but it seems like dct:references is appropriate for citations as well as other types of resources. Are you familiar with the bibo ontology[1]? The property bibo:cites[2] might be useful for distinguishing a resource that is cited from a resource that is referenced. Aaron [1]http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/ [2]http://purl.org/ontology/bibo/cites
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 18:25:02 UTC