Good explanation Frederick.
Open GUID does not make the distinction between subjects and named
entities, it leaves that up to specific ontology/data providers.
Back to the original topic of an RDFa 'about' attribute on a Wikipedia
article, an UMBEL subject concept would fit perfectly there and move the
isAbout declaration to the source. For named entities, however, the
attribute would point to the "http://umbel.org/umbel/ne/wikipedia";
namespace, which is just itself, and thus subject to volatile URI and
notability limitations. But as Chris pointed out, this is perfectly
fine for some use cases.
My old Databases 101 professor would argue that a fixed identifier is
the best way to associate data, but I suppose this is Web 420 class.
Maybe it's best to look at Open GUID as an UMBEL named entity
dictionary. One that is meant to be linked by people and unlimited in
scope. Whether there are enough use cases to support the linking effort
remains to be seen.
Jason
> Frederick Giasson wrote:
Exactly. One thing I will stress again in this discussion: UMBEL is
basically two things: (1) a Subject Concept structure (space) and (2) a
aggregation of Named Entities dictionaries (instances of classes).
Please refer to the glossary to read the definition of each concept[1].
DBpedia is about instances of classes. DBpedia is linked (via sameAs
since they come from the same data source: Wikipedia) to UMBEL named
entities, and not UMBEL's subject concept structure (the SC structure
helps instantiating these named entitites though).
So, two things here: Wikipedia articles can be referred to many things.
Two of these things are: this article is about this subject concept and
this article is related to this other named entity.
I think Jason is more thinking about linking Wikipedia articles with
topical concepts; which refers to UMBEL subject concept. The linkage can
be done using the umbel:isAbout predicate and any UMBEL subject concept.
[1] http://umbel.org/sc_ne.html
Thanks
Take care,
Fred
