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 12:16:53 +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: <1244805413.29842.26.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:47 +0100, Toby Inkster wrote:
> 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.

Lest I be accused of nonconstructive criticism, a route to improving the
vocab would be to properly align CommonTag with existing ontologies by
dropping ctag:taggedDate altogether.

Of all the terms defined by CommonTag, ctag:taggedDate is probably the
one with least value to most publishers, so this change would not only
help align CommonTag with other ontologies, but also serve to simplify
and streamline the spec.

The description of tagging *events* could then be considered an
"advanced" use case, not directly supported by CommonTag. But given that
CommonTag would then be compatible with Richard Newman's ontology, and
MOAT, SCOT, etc, advanced users could go outside CommonTag to add this
extra meaning to their tags.

-- 
Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 11:17:38 UTC

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