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

Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention

From: Valeska Oleary <voleary@idgenterprise.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 10:31:54 -0400
To: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>, 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" <public-lod@w3.org>
Message-ID: <C657DF1A.DA85%voleary@idgenterprise.com>
It's hard to comment without understanding the use cases and scenarios, but high level speaking I'm inclined to think date is a valuable piece of information to most publishers.

______________________________________________________

V A L E S K A  O ' L E A R Y
Director of User Experience
T: 508.766.5441 | C: 508.561.1553 | F: 508.766.5315
Twitter: valeskaUX

ONLINE PUBLISHING GROUP IDG ENTERPRISE
CXO Media/NWW
492 Old Connecticut Path, 4th Floor | Framingham, MA 01701
______________________________________________________

CIO.com | NetworkWorld.com | CSOonline,.com | TheStandard.com | DEMO.com | ComputerWorld.com | InfoWorld.com | ITWorld.com | ITWhitepapers.com
______________________________________________________

It's very difficult for us to talk about people without personalizing them -- so why do computers dehumanize us? We need to stop thinking of things as technical problems and start thinking about them as people problems.



On 6/12/09 10:21 AM, "Peter Mika" <pmika@yahoo-inc.com> wrote:

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><mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     2009/6/12 Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk <mailto: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><http://del.icio.us> taggings into
>     Richard's Tag Ontology. del.icio.us <http://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 15:46:31 UTC

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