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

Re: [Linking-open-data] [ANN] MOAT

From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 15:04:28 -0500
Message-ID: <4793A94C.7020704@openlinksw.com>
To: Linking Open Data <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>
CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, semantic-web@w3.org, sioc-dev@groups.l.google.com, Golda Velez <gv@btucson.com>

Frederick Giasson wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linking-open-data mailing list
> Linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu
> http://simile.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/linking-open-data
>
>   
All,

Let's look at:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/img/ex-sub.png


-- 


Regards,

Kingsley Idehen	      Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
President & CEO 
OpenLink Software     Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Received on Sunday, 20 January 2008 20:04:45 GMT

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