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

Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 13:50:37 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd0906120450n315104d2vfa016f4de4d2fa59@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Andraz Tori <andraz@zemanta.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
2009/6/12 Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>:

> 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.

Makes sense to me.

While an RDFS/OWL inference based mapping between Richard's ontology
and Common Tag may not be be possible right now, SPARQL CONSTRUCT
could be an alternative.

Note also Richard's ontology allows:

<uri> tags:taggedWithTag <taguri> .

SPARQL (SELECT or CONSTRUCT) across those alongside Common Tag
taggings would be easy using OPTIONALs

Just as a little in-practice datapoint, not long ago I set up a little
proof-of-concept service [1] for pulling out del.icio.us taggings into
Richard's Tag Ontology. del.icio.us's RSS 1.0 feed gets the date
modelling wrong, funnily enough, so I was using XSLT on their API
(code at [2]). Although some of the string manipulation bits were
painful, the bit I decided to leave out because it was hard work was
reconciling the lists of values that could be the subject of
associatedTag.

Overall I was left with the impression that Richard's ont could use
simplifying, if it was possible to do this without breaking the
potential for maximally capturing data about the tagging event. I'm
optimistic the Common Tag mini-consortium can sort this one out :)

Cheers,
Danny.

[1] http://hyperdata.org/taglia/
[2] http://n2.talis.com/svn/playground/danja/taglia/


-- 
http://danny.ayers.name
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 11:51:17 UTC

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