Submissions:Metonymy-species-commodity

From Odp

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search

WimPeters (Talk | contribs)
(New page: {{Content_OP_Proposal_toolbar}} {{Include Image |ImageName=met1.jpg }} {{Content OP Proposal Template |SubmittedBy=User:WimPeters |Name=FAO-metonymy-species-commodity |AlsoKnownAs=fish-spe...)
Next diff →

Revision as of 13:38, 18 June 2008


This pattern has been certified.

Related submission, with evaluation history, can be found here

If you are a member of quality committee please visit the

evaluation section

If you are author of this proposal or you want to contribute to this pattern's review, you can:

In general, it could be useful to visit the evaluation section to have information about the evaluation process of this proposal

Current revision ID: 2565

Image:met1.jpg

General description

Name: FAO-metonymy-species-commodity
Submitted by: User:WimPeters
Also Known As:
Intent: To establish the reason for species exploitation.
Domains:

Fisheries

Competency Questions:
  • For which commodity is the species used when caught?
Solution description:
Reusable OWL Building Block: http://gate.ac.uk/gate-extras/neon/ontologies/metonymy1_FAO.owl (846)
Consequences: the link between species and consumer product will allow the blacklisting of product manufactured from endangered stocks.
Scenarios: Yellowfin tuna is provided as fresh or chilled food commodity
Known Uses:
Web References:
Other References:
Examples (OWL files):
Extracted From:
Reengineered From:
Has Components:
Specialization Of:
Related CPs:


Elements

The Metonymy-species-commodity Content OP locally defines the following ontology elements:

This pattern has been observed in WordNet, where words share the following regular polysemic patterns animal-food, animal-commodity and life form-consumer goods.

Scenarios

Scenarios about Metonymy-species-commodity

No scenario is added to this Content OP.

Reviews

Reviews about Metonymy-species-commodity

There is no review about this proposal. This revision (revision ID 2565) takes in account the reviews: none

Other info at evaluation tab

Personal tools
Quality Committee
Content OP publishers