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
