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 16:21:51 +0200
Message-ID: <4A32647F.7000203@yahoo-inc.com>
To: François Dongier <francois.dongier@gmail.com>
CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Andraz Tori <andraz@zemanta.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Maybe others can comment as well, but I do think it's an important piece 
of information, e.g. to determine recently popular tags.

Cheers,
Peter

François Dongier wrote:
> Peter, maybe you could explain why you guys found it useful to date 
> tagging events in the first place. I suppose the point of it might be 
> that it could provide some context? If so, the date is only one aspect 
> of the context and probably not the richest one.
>
> On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com 
> <mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     2009/6/12 Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk <mailto: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
>     <http://del.icio.us> taggings into
>     Richard's Tag Ontology. del.icio.us <http://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 14:23:26 UTC

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