W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-lod@w3.org > November 2011

Re: ANN: Modular Unified Tagging Ontology (MUTO)

From: Bernard Vatant <bernard.vatant@mondeca.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 16:08:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAK4ZFVEBSKVD15s-hvYaGqNGTkK7987xVJOUKSTrbxNtOwnOZQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Steffen Lohmann <slohmann@inf.uc3m.es>
Cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-lod@w3.org, semantic-web@w3.org, Pierre-Yves Vandenbussche <pierre-yves.vandenbussche@mondeca.com>
Hi folks

Maybe a good way to capture the fact that MUTO has used previous works, but
with significant changes making difficult to assert equivalences at element
level such as equivalentClass etc, would be is to assert link at vocabulary
(ontology) level, using for example the property

<http://purl.org/muto/core>  doc:derivedFrom  <
<http://purl.org/muto/core>  doc:derivedFrom  <http://moat-project.org/ns>


Such assertions could be added to other cross-vocabulary links at e.g.,
http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov/details/vocabulary_muto.html. Actually
"derivedFrom" and "derivativeWork" should be mentioned in VOAF.

BTW if the honorable creator of http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/pim/doc is
following this thread (he might/should) he could benefit of it to revisit
the definitions of doc:derivedFrom and doc:derivativeWork, inverse
properties with the same definition "A work wholey or partly used in the
creation of this one." Guess it is OK for the former, but not the latter :)



2011/11/18 Steffen Lohmann <slohmann@inf.uc3m.es>

> On 17.11.2011 20:03, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
>> Hi Steffen,
>> On 17 Nov 2011, at 14:34, Steffen Lohmann wrote:
>>> MUTO should thus not be considered as yet another tagging ontology but
>>> as a unification of existing approaches.
>> I'm curious why you decided not to include mappings (equivalentClass,
>> subProperty etc) to the existing approaches.
> Good point, Richard. I thought about it but finally decided to separate
> these alignments from the core ontology - therefore the "MUTO Mappings
> Module" (http://muto.socialtagging.**org/core/v1.html#Modules<http://muto.socialtagging.org/core/v1.html#Modules>
> ).
> SIOC and SKOS can be nicely reused but aligning MUTO with the nine
> reviewed tagging ontologies is challenging and would result in a number of
> inconsistencies. This is mainly due to a different conceptual understanding
> of tagging and folksonomies in the various ontologies. To give some
> examples:
> - Are tags with same labels merged in the ontology (i.e. are they one
> instance)?
> - Is the number of tags per tagging limited to one or not?
> - In case of semantic tagging: Are single tags or complete taggings
> disambiguated?
> - How are the creators of taggings linked?
> - Are tags from private taggings visible to other users or not?
> Apart from that, I would have risk that MUTO is no longer OWL Lite/DL
> which I consider important for a tagging ontology (reasoning of
> folksonomies).
> The current version of the MUTO Mappings Module provides alignments to
> Newman's popular TAGS ontology (mainly for compatibility reasons). Have a
> look at it and you'll get an idea of the difficulties in correctly aligning
> MUTO with existing tagging ontologies.
> Best,
> Steffen
> --
> Steffen Lohmann - DEI Lab
> Computer Science Department, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
> Avda de la Universidad 30, 28911 LeganÚs, Madrid (Spain), Office: 22A20
> Phone: +34 916 24-9419, http://www.dei.inf.uc3m.es/**slohmann/<http://www.dei.inf.uc3m.es/slohmann/>

*Bernard Vatant
Vocabularies & Data Engineering
Tel :  + 33 (0)9 71 48 84 59
Skype : bernard.vatant
Linked Open Vocabularies <http://labs.mondeca.com/dataset/lov>

*Mondeca**          **                   *
3 citÚ Nollez 75018 Paris, France
Follow us on Twitter : @mondecanews <http://twitter.com/#%21/mondecanews>
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 15:09:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 31 March 2013 14:24:36 UTC