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

Re: Semantic Tagging and Motivation

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 21 May 2013 15:39:31 -0600
Message-ID: <CABevsUFZ6PL-EPRQT4CxOGfuPJYTNdbty922p29FE2mxTnzNFg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com>
Cc: public-openannotation <public-openannotation@w3.org>
While there are clearly better motivations for semantic tagging, including
oa:classifying and oa:identifying which we have in the list already,
tagging with a literal is often just "tagging" without further
understanding.  If you had a tag based system and wanted to expose the tags
that your users had typed in, you couldn't get any more detailed than just
"tagging" as a motivation as the information isn't captured in any way.

We could clarify that tagging SHOULD be present IF no other motivation is
clearer.

Hope that helps,

Rob



On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:21 PM, Bob Morris <morris.bob@gmail.com> wrote:

> [1] carries the text "As explained in the Motivation section,
> Annotations that tag resources, either with text or semantic tags,
> SHOULD also have the oa:tagging motivation to make the reason for the
> Annotation more clear to applications, and MAY have other motivations
> as well."
>
> But actually, by my reading, the Motivation section [2] does not in
> fact say that.  Rather it seems only to say that every Annotation
> should have a motivation.
>
> Indeed, I'm \glad/ that the Motivations section does not urge the
> oa:tagging motivation on several grounds:
> (a). Doing so would really be kind of a throwback to the idea in the
> previous OA draft that Motivations classify Annotations, and I've
> always believed we were well rid of that.
> (b). I think there are more fundamental Knowledge Representation
> reasons for tagging than Motivation ---at least for Semantic Tagging.
> To me, classifying the object of hasBody as a SemanticTag and hanging
> domain properties on \it/  gives a clean way to specify the particular
> domain relation(s) between the Target and another domain object.  This
> could be done directly by just making that object be the Body, and
> asserting the relation directly, but this is fraught with
> complications: it doesn't provide the provenance of the assertion that
> an annotation does; it is subject to contradiction by assertions
> altogether unconnected to the annotation (which with a SemanticTag
> could be made moot by making the SemanticTag an anonymous node), and
> probably others.
> (c). In our data annotation use cases so far, tagging for tagging's
> sake is never an issue so it's a stretch to call it a motivation.
> (d). If the editors remove the aforementioned sentence "As
> explained....SHOULD ...", then Anna Gerber's fabulous lorestore OA
> validator [3] and its ruleset will stop bugging me about lacking an
> oa:tagging motivation. :-)
>
> Bob Morris
>
> [1] http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/20130208/core.html#Tagging
> [2] http://www.openannotation.org/spec/core/20130208/core.html#Motivations
> [3] http://austese.net/lorestore/validate.html
> --
> Robert A. Morris
>
> Emeritus Professor  of Computer Science
> UMASS-Boston
> 100 Morrissey Blvd
> Boston, MA 02125-3390
>
> IT Staff
> Filtered Push Project
> Harvard University Herbaria
> Harvard University
>
> email: morris.bob@gmail.com
> web: http://efg.cs.umb.edu/
> web: http://wiki.filteredpush.org
> http://www.cs.umb.edu/~ram
> ===
> The content of this communication is made entirely on my
> own behalf and in no way should be deemed to express
> official positions of The University of Massachusetts at Boston or
> Harvard University.
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 21 May 2013 21:40:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:22:04 UTC