W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > June 2009

Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention

From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:15:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4A322ADE.5080608@yahoo-inc.com>
To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Andraz Tori <andraz@zemanta.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Indeed, you cannot do this merging: a ctag:Tag refers to the tagging 
event. So the concepts they refer to (ctag:means) might be the same, the 
Tags are not.

Cheers,
Peter

Yves Raimond wrote:
> Hello!
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Danny Ayers<danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Really good to see this work!
>>
>> May be nothing, but...it appears the tagging date is associated with
>> the tag. I assume most systems would want to infer that tags with the
>> same meaning were equivalent (even though this isn't specified using
>> IFPs or whatever). I'm a little concerned about what you'll get when
>> merging different doc's data with this assumption of equivalence -
>>
>> <doc1> ctag:tagged [
>>   a ctag:Tag
>>   ctag:taggingDate "2009-06-12"
>>   ctag:means <http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en/collaborative_tagging> ] .
>>
>> <doc2> ctag:tagged [
>>   a ctag:Tag
>>   ctag:taggingDate "2009-06-13"
>>   ctag:means <http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en/collaborative_tagging> ] .
>>
>> ->
>>
>>  [  a ctag:Tag
>>   ctag:taggingDate "2009-06-12"
>>   ctag:taggingDate "2009-06-13"
>>   ctag:means <http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en/collaborative_tagging> ]
>>
>> - which doesn't look very useful.
>>
>>     
>
>
> Yes, this indeed will give quite weird results. The tag ontology at
> [1]  tackles this issue nicely, by considering a tagging event and the
> tag itself as two different entities.
>
> Cheers,
> y
>
> [1] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/
>
>   
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 10:17:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:21 UTC