W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Semantic Tags (was several threads)

From: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:34:04 +0000
Message-ID: <CACLxDV45CE-T40128OSncW6GbnJpmDQjdMdNLhQoFWTvzp+Ktg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
Hi all,

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
> <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> 2.  (Antoine) Use a oa:SemanticTag class, with foaf:primaryTopicOf.
> >> Object from Rob: it's inverse functional, so the same document
> >> couldn't be used for different semantic concepts. As the URI for the
> >> tag resource is likely going to be a UUID or a blank node, this could
> >> have unfortunate repercussions.
> >
> > -1 The 'inverse functional' constraint is too restrictive
> >
> >> 3.  (Rob) Use oa:SemanticTag class, with foaf:page.  This is the same
> >> as 2. but with a looser predicate that isn't functional.
> >
> > The last one is compact, does not interfere with other constructs, gives
> a
> > little structure without too much commitment, is more declarative.
>
> :)
>

+1


>
> > And I like how it reads for cases in which the URI is actually a page or
> > HTML document
> > ex:semtag a oa:SemanticTag ;
> >   foaf:page <http://omim.org/entry/104760> .
> > The inverse I think also makes sense:
> > <http://omim.org/entry/104760> foaf:topic ex:semtag
>
> I think so too.
>
> > However, for URis such as the DBpedia ones, are we still planning to do:
> > <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Eiffel_Tower> a oa:SemanticTag. ?
> > or to adopt the above model?
>
> Good question!
>
> Stian brought this up. I don't think that there are any conflicts,
> because oa:SemanticTag when it really is a concept URI just states
> that.
> But I'm willing to be wrong! The class is really about the
> *identifier* not the *identified object*.
>
> For example, would clients be confused if they saw an Annotation that
> targeted a resource, say the dbpedia URI for Paris, and the RDF
> claimed that Paris was of class oa:SemanticTag ?  I think this
> actually *helps*, as the client would know not to dereference the URI
> looking for a document.  But perhaps we could have a better name for
> the class?
>

I like the current name SemanticTag. I also think is ok.

Leyla

>
> Rob
>
>
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 19:34:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:03 UTC