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: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:50:28 +0100
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
Cc: public-lod@w3.org
Message-Id: <1245757828.15599.21.camel@ophelia2.g5n.co.uk>
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 12:37 +0100, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> So the design of Common Tag implies that Tag resources should not be 
> "reused" across different tagging actions, which IMHO makes them quite
> different from Newman's Tags (and close to Tagging, in fact).

I reached a similar conclusion. As the commontag mailing list doesn't
have public archives yet, here's a quote from a recent message I posted
there:

> On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 08:43 -0700, Alexandre Passant wrote:
> 
> > A Tag in common tag is a tag a seen in Newman's ontology.
> 
> Technically that's true, but in practise I think the two concepts of a
> Tag will probably be used quite differently.
> 
> Assuming you give a Tag a URI, then in Richard Newman's ontology (and
> SKOS from which his inherits), the Tag is reusable. It's possible to
> say that:
> 
>         <http://example.com/docs/1>
>           tags:taggedWithTag
>             <http://example.com/tags/u2#concept> .
> 
>         <http://example.com/docs/2>
>           tags:taggedWithTag
>             <http://example.com/tags/u2#concept> .
> 
> But with Common Tag you can't do that without implying that the tag
> dates are the same, and (if you use subclasses of ctag:Tag) the
> tagging method (author, reader, robot) was the same.
> 
> A ctag:Tag is essentially a blend between a tags:Tag and a
> tags:Tagging. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it may make
> mapping between the two schemas more challenging.

-- 
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 11:51:17 UTC

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