relatesToMarketIndustry

[Tim rdf]

Greetings,

Is relatesToMarketIndustry and MarketsIndustries a reasonable use in the following RDF description?

{{{

<http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/TimLebo>

   a foaf:Person;

   umbel:relatesToMarketIndustry <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Computer_industry> .

<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Computer_industry> a umbel:MarketsIndustries . 

}}}

The definitions are a bit heavyweight from my naive perspective, so I'm not sure if I'm mis-using UMBEL.

"This predicate relates an external entity to the SuperType (ST) shown. It indicates there is a relationship to the ST of a verifiable nature, but which is undetermined as to strength or a full rdf:type relationship."

and

"This SuperType is a specialized classificatory system for markets and industries. It could be combined with the SuperType above, but is kept separate in order to provide a separate, economy-oriented system. "

Thanks!

Tim Lebo

[Mike Bergman]

Hi Tim,

Sorry it took a bit to get back to you.

On 8/22/2013 8:38 PM, Tim rdf wrote:
> Greetings,
>
> Is relatesToMarketIndustry and MarketsIndustries a reasonable use in the
> following RDF description?
>
> {{{
>
> <http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/TimLebo>
> a foaf:Person;
> umbel:relatesToMarketIndustry
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Computer_industry> .
>
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Computer_industry> a umbel:MarketsIndustries .
>
> }}}

Yes, this is all technically correct, though actually we use the
umbel:relatesToXXX more as an organizing structure within UMBEL, rather
than as a target for external assignments, though what you have is fine.

Also, this is probably more accurate:

<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Computer_industry> umbel:isRelatedTo
umbel:ComputerMarketCategory .

Thanks, Mike

>
> The definitions are a bit heavyweight from my naive perspective, so I'm
> not sure if I'm mis-using UMBEL.
>
> "This predicate relates an external entity to the SuperType (ST) shown.
> It indicates there is a relationship to the ST of a verifiable nature,
> but which is undetermined as to strength or a full rdf:type relationship."
> and
> "This SuperType is a specialized classificatory system for markets and
> industries. It could be combined with the SuperType above, but is kept
> separate in order to provide a separate, economy-oriented system. "
>
> Thanks!
> Tim Lebo
>

> --
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the "UMBEL" group.
> To post: umbel-o...@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe: umbel-ontolog...@googlegroups.com
> Group home: http://groups.google.com/group/umbel-ontology?hl=en
> ---
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> Groups "UMBEL" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> an email to umbel-ontolog...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
__________________________________________

Michael K. Bergman
CEO Structured Dynamics LLC
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://structureddynamics.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________

[Tim rdf]

Thanks, Mike.

Glad to hear that my use is correct. Your umbel:isRelatedTo triple seems harmless enough, but I'm not sure how it helps my need to "bin" myself into the "industry" that is "computer industry". I'm doing some modeling for some business types that think very heavily around which "industry" an employee is working in, e.g. "Oil Industry", "Stock Trader Industry", "Textile industry", etc.

So, I'm in search of a "is in industry" property, so using <Tim> umbel:isRelatedTo <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Computer_industry> seems too generic since it doesn't put me into the industry. I guess I could use dcterms:isPartOf with an object typed to "Industry" -- which is why I'm keen on umbel:MarketsIndustries.

So, how is this better than my previous, since it avoids using your "organizing property"?:

{{{

<http://tw.rpi.edu/instances/TimLebo>
    a foaf:Person;

    dcterms:isPartOf

<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Computer_industry> .

<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Computer_industry> a umbel:MarketsIndustries .

}}}

Thanks again!

Best,

Tim

To post: umbel-ontology@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe: umbel-ontology-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

Group home: http://groups.google.com/group/umbel-ontology?hl=en
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "UMBEL" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send

an email to umbel-ontology+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
__________________________________________

Michael K. Bergman
CEO  Structured Dynamics LLC
319.621.5225
skype:michaelkbergman
http://structureddynamics.com
http://mkbergman.com
http://www.linkedin.com/in/mkbergman
__________________________________________

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the "UMBEL" group.

To post:  umbel-ontology@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe:  umbel-ontology-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

Group home:  http://groups.google.com/group/umbel-ontology?hl=en
--- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "UMBEL" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to umbel-ontology+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.