W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2008

Re: [ANN] MOAT

From: Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:47:52 -0500
Message-id: <47935F18.1030505@fgiasson.com>
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Cc: Golda Velez <gv@btucson.com>, Alexandre Passant <alex@passant.org>, Linking Open Data <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>, sioc-dev@groups.google.com, semantic-web@w3.org

Hi Danny,


> I'm not sure, there may be another opportunity for interop with SKOS.
>
> This:
>
> <moat:Meaning>
>    <moat:meaningURI rdf:resource="http://sws.geonames.org/2988507/"/>
>
> seems conceptually (!) pretty close to:
>
> <skos:Concept rdf:about="http://sws.geonames.org/2988507/">
>
> Though I'm not sure what the mapping would look like, given the extra
> indirection (note that moat:meaningURI is defined as a
> DatatypeProperty in the ont, but appears as an ObjectProperty in the
> example).
>   


Not certain I agree with you, and I do agree that something look weird 
with meaningURI.


Well, there is how I see MOAT and its context. First, you have a literal 
entity that is called a "tag". Tags have a context: the user that used 
it, and is related to the thing it tags. At this moment, I don't see a 
tag as a concept in the sense of a skos:Concept. However, a tag can 
"mean" a concept (a SKOS concept). One tag can be related to one or more 
concepts.

However, right now, moat:meaningURI has a Resource has range. So, I can 
related the meaning of a tag with virtually anything in the World. Does 
this make sense? It really depends on the meaning of a "meaning". 
Otherwise, could the range be a skos:Concept? Yes, I think it could be a 
good idea. But, the system couldn't be able to use dbpedia anymore since 
they are not skos:Concept.

Alex: why the range of meaningURI is a resource? (well, the name make 
sense that the range is a Resource, any resource, but I am not sure the 
name of this property is optimal and unambiguous considering the context 
here).

Why not a moat:concept (range skos:Concept) or something? Thinking aloud 
here.

However, where I think you are right and understood your suggestion, 
after rethinking about it:


You are suggesting that a moat:Tag is in relation, with a property like 
moat:concept directly with a skos:Concept instead of a moat:Meaning?

The problem with this, I think, is that you loose the context of the 
meaning of the tag (each meaning is related to a user). Why I do think 
this is important is in a context where you would have 30 different 
meaning for a single tag. What if we do not know where they come from? 
It is where MOAT is really interesting and brings something new (and 
useful!) to tags. Because now, we have a way to manage these tags.

But I still believe that meaningURI could be changed to moat:concept, or 
something similar.

thoughts Alex? Did I miss something?


Thanks for the great work!


Take care,


Fred
Received on Sunday, 20 January 2008 14:54:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:20 GMT