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

Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention

From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:47:31 +0100
To: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Andraz Tori <andraz@zemanta.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <1244803651.29842.14.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:15 +0200, Peter Mika wrote:
> 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.

Then http://commontag.org/mapping is wrong. It states:

	ctag:Tag rdfs:subClassOf tag:Tag .
	ctag:tagged rdfs:subClassOf tag:taggedWithTag .

Whereas if ctag:Tag represents the tagging event, it should state:

	ctag:Tag rdfs:subClassOf tag:Tagging .
	ctag:tagged rdfs:subClassOf tag:tag .

That also has implications for ctag's mappings to MOAT, SCOT, SKOS and
SIOC though. And it invalidates the ctag:means mapping to MOAT.

In essence it seems ctag:Tag is a sort of hybrid between tag:Tagging and
tag:Tag. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it does mean that
your mappings to Richard Newman's tag ontology are probably never going
to work especially well. And this includes MOAT and SCOT which are built
on Richard's ontology. (And SIOC and SKOS use ideas which are ´╗┐fairly
compatible with Richard's ontology too - indeed, tag:Tag is a subclass
of skos:Concept.)

-- 
Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 10:48:18 UTC

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