W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swd-wg@w3.org > April 2007

Re: Using tags for POWDER content labels

From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:15:58 +0100
Message-ID: <461FACBE.7020900@icra.org>
To: public-powderwg@w3.org
CC: SIOC-Dev <sioc-dev@googlegroups.com>, public-swd-wg@w3.org

Hi Kjetil,

This looks terrific. Two things to say in quick response (OK, so it's 26 
hours since you posted this but you know what I mean...)

Others have raised the issue of including/supporting/linking POWDER and 
tags. Clearly it's something we should do so I'm delighted that you're 
already doing it!

Secondly - when I get round to it?? You think I don't have a vocabulary 
for describing nudity? My dear fellow, my I point you in the direction 
of a plain text version of the ICRA vocabulary [1] and its RDF schema 
equivalent [2]. While I'm at it, I can also direct you to the QUATRO 
project vocabulary [3] [4], which is designed for use by trustmarks but 
is fully open to any usage.

Cheers for now


[1] http://www.icra.org/vocabulary/
[2] http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03
[3] http://www.quatro-project.org/QuatroVocabulary.htm
[4] http://purl.org/quatro/elements/1.0/ (ooh, that looks a bit like the 
DC namespace doesn't it...)

Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote:
> Hi all!
> Sorry for the cross-posting, but this is a topic that I think is in the 
> intersection between POWDER, SIOC and SKOS, thus I would like to hear 
> opinions from several groups. Reply-To is tentatively set to 
> public-powderwg@w3.org, but post as you see appropriate (I guess 
> anti-spam measures could make this nasty...)
> I intend to support POWDER content labels on my.opera.com, since we live 
> with people posting nudes and stuff. Censorship is a touchy issue. 
> However, rigid taxonomies have never been popular among users, tags are 
> however, so I intend that people tag their stuff, and then map that tag 
> to a POWDER description. The basic infrastructure for doing this is 
> allready in place: 
> http://my.opera.com/semweb/blog/2007/03/08/marrying-folksonomies-and-taxonomies
> However, the current interface is now rather complex:
> http://my.opera.com/semweb/blog/2007/03/23/complexities-of-tag-to-vocabulary-mappin
> to the extent where I think it would confuse many users and thus be of 
> little value. 
> So, this is how I imagine it done: A user has tags, modelled with SKOS 
> concepts. Thus every tag gets a URI, 
> http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude
> for example. Then, this tag needs to be bound to a resource on one hand 
> and a POWDER description on the other.
> sioc:topic comes to mind, thus 
> <http://my.opera.com/username/albums/foo/nude.jpg> sioc:topic 
> <http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude> .
> Since ICRA/FOSI will have created the vocabulary about nudity for us, 
> all I want to do is to link to the description, that I hope Phil one 
> day will create (this is just an example!):
> <http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude> ex:means 
> <http://www.fosi.org/rdf/descriptions#just-nude> .
> The first obvious thing is that I don't know what predicate that should 
> be used to link the SKOS concept to the description. However, that 
> could be another issue for the open SKOS issue in the core guide as 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/#secmodellingrdf
> If this approach to tag-to-URI mapping is feasible, I would be happy if 
> something like that went into SKOS. The implementation I currently have 
> on my.opera.com is allready a use case for this.
> The next problem is that I'm not linking a resource directly to a 
> description, thus making SPARQL queries and the general model more 
> complex. The alternative, as I see it, is to make the UI more complex 
> on the tagging services, but I don't think that's a good approach.
> Thus, I think the minimum graph to link a resource to a POWDER 
> description is 
> <http://my.opera.com/username/albums/foo/nude.jpg> sioc:topic 
> <http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude> .
> <http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude> ex:means 
> <http://www.fosi.org/rdf/descriptions#just-nude> .
> and an user agent would have to understand that. I was myself hoping to 
> get away with a single triple when I started to work on this, but as 
> noted in my blog, it is a matter of who gets to deal with the 
> complexity. So, is this the right balance?
> Note that this approach does not at all use the content grouping that 
> the POWDER group discusses at length, it just links resource to 
> description. Of course, for large-scale workflows, content grouping is 
> important, but I think "the long tail" may be more comfortable with 
> this approach. It would be very interesting if we could get del.icio.us 
> involved, for example.
> Cheers,
> Kjetil

Phil Archer
Chief Technical Officer,
Family Online Safety Institute
w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 16:15:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:07:49 UTC