Re: Comments to “SE Free text tagging a Image”

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 12:13 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> >> About the section:
>> >>
>> >> We have a section “2.1.3 Tags and Semantic Tags” and there we introduce
>> >> the class oa:Tag. However, we do not use it in this example; I think
>> it is
>> >> missing.
>> >>
>> >> From the description in the section, it seems that semantic tags are
>> those
>> >> tags corresponding to URIs? I do not think that is always the case.
>> >> “http://dbpedia.org/resource/Paris” does correspond to a semantic
>> entity but
>> >> “http://wikipedia.org/Paris/”  does not. I think that for semantic
>> tags only
>> >> URIs corresponding to semantic entities should be use, any other
>> thoughts
>> >> about it?
>>
>> Yes, Semantic Tags should be non information resources to ensure that
>> there isn't a collision between someone using the same URI, but
>> intending it to be treated as a document rather than a concept.
>>
>> > In that particular example I used a free text tag and so I am assuming
>> the
>> > motivation ao:tagging is enough.
>>
>> I would include the oa:Tag to make it clear that the text is a tag,
>> and not a comment.
>>
>>
>> > However, in general the point you raise is
>> > a general issue. The current spec allows classifying a URI as semantic
>> tag
>> > by using oa:Tag. However, the spec says  also:
>>
>> > "It is NOT RECOMMENDED to use the URI of a document as a semantic tag,
>> as it
>> > might also be used as a regular Body in other Annotations which would
>> > inherit the oa:Tag class assignment. Instead a new URI should be
>> created and
>> > linked to the document using an ontology appropriate to the situation."
>> >
>> > Which I believe it is addressing what you are asking.
>> > The problem arises when somebody uses document URIs as tags (not that
>> > uncommon).
>>
>> I'm a little more optimistic. But without inventing lots of new
>> predicates (like we had with hasSemanticTag previously) and then also
>> for the multiplicity constructs, we can only do our best to recommend
>> good behavior.  Hopefully also there won't be many collisions, as it
>> seems unlikely that the document being used to tag something would
>> also be used as the body of an annotation where it was meant as a
>> comment or description.
>>
>>
>> >> One question not necessarily related to tags. Could I use annotations
>> to
>> >> say that a 3D version of that image can be retrieved from “PDB link” in
>> >> format “XXX”? If yes, how could that being expressed in OA? In
>> general, the
>> >> question is how to express links to other resources with annotations?
>> >
>> > Rob, was that the usage of the oa:linking motivation we removed?
>>
>> We could certainly reintroduce it.    I'm in favor of having more
>> motivations, rather than fewer, to prevent future collisions where
>> multiple communities all mint something rather basic.  If I recall
>> correctly, it was seen as too similar to oa:annotating, which we now
>> don't have any more.
>>
>> How about:
>> oa:linking  The motivation that represents an untyped link to a
>> resource related to the target.
>>
>>
> I am good with reintroducing it. Meanwhile I also would like to see a
> concrete example in the Cookbook about it because I think the problem is
> also to characterize the link.
> I would try to start by representing what Layla outlined: a 3D version of
> that image can be retrieved from “PDB link” in format “XXX”
>
> Paolo
>

I think that is a useful motivation so +1.

I just changed the description on the example at
http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/SE_Free_text_tagging_a_Image

Leyla