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

Re: Semantic Tags (was several threads)

From: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:09:21 -0500
Message-ID: <CAFPX2kDLRLBRh+m99TF+erjmT7zaJE6ACW0mjqr+W7ewVVBN3Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
Cc: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Leyla Jael García Castro <
leylajael@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
+1 I like it to be explicit by declaring oa:SemantiTag

Paolo
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 21:09:48 UTC

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