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 19:52:33 -0500
Message-id: <4793ECD1.2080302@fgiasson.com>
To: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Cc: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, 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 Peter,

> Personally I would prefer it to be Resource for better
> interoperability with actual objects in the field. If people tagged
> things to categorise them, as opposed to labelling them, then a
> specific range might be relevant, but personally I just label when I
> tag so it can be anything that I am labelling the item against. If the
> actual URI is a skos:Concept then you can effectively allow for it
> still when you make up a query filter on it.
>
>   
One thing: it is not about what to tag (we can effectively tag 
anything). It is about how to link a meaning to a concept. Intuitively I 
would say that a meaning is linked to a concept (and not anything that 
is a resource).


> If you make it a moat:concept you add another level of complexity and
> reduce the scalability IMO, as one has to augment the URI which
> otherwise could have been completely separate from the system. Simple
> is good.
>
> There could be a case for having moat:concept with extra annotations
> available locally on the concept, but it seems easier to keep the
> provenance directly given to the tag by the user context right next to
> the meaningURI.
>   

The idea is not to use meaningURI and use skos:subject (or whatever the 
property) to link a meaning to its concept. Just thinking aloud in this 
conversation.


Take care,


Fred
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 00:53:00 GMT

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