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


From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 11:58:43 +1000
Message-ID: <a1be7e0e0801201758p46a3cdc9y52378c85503ab540@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Frederick Giasson" <fred@fgiasson.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 Interest Group" <semantic-web@w3.org>

On 21/01/2008, Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com> wrote:
> Hi Perter,
> > I think it is reasonable to tag anything with anything myself. I don't
> >
> Totally agree.
> > think tagging a document on the internet needs to be associated with a
> > skos concept. I think you should be able to derive the tag from
> >
> We are talking about the "tag", not the tagged thing here (think it is
> where we are getting lost)

I thought that we were basically talking about what types of things
could be used in the part of the tag which related the tagged thing to
something else on the semantic web. I prefer the type to be
rdf:resource, which is unless I am really really confused what is
currently being used.

> > anything, although if it had an rdfs:label and a rdf:type it might
> > help, but ideally you just need to have the link to the resource and
> > know that it is a link. Unless you want tagging to become so
> > cumbersome noone uses it I think there should be a focus on simplicity
> > and interoperability with the ability to tag at the most basic level
> > of resources to resources.
> >
> We are always talking about MOAT here, with the same architectures, the
> same systems. Don't forget that MOAT is supported by a server side
> system that helps users to relate a tag to meaning(s). It is a
> semi-supervised system.

Do meanings have to be approved or added by a manager before they can
be used? I would prefer not. Not sure if that is what you mean by
semi-supervised though.

> We are, in fact, talking about how to describe what Alex put in his
> system: what is the best way to describe the things he envisioned (the
> meanings, the tags, etc)

Meaning has never been a very clear concept to me. "Essence of
something" is about as clear as I have been able to get to, where
essence can be anything in my opinion.

> > If you leave it at the generic Resource level than tagging should only
> > contain one extra step to normal, ie, choosing the URI from any that
> > they know about. If you enforce a narrow range then they are quire
> > likely to have to create a new resource before tagging can continue,
> >
> Depends on the system.
> It is really about the semantic of the vocabulary: what is a meaning?
> How to relate a meaning? how to describe a meaning? etc.

I would prefer the semantics to be completely on the fact that the tag
is a moat:tag with no particular relevance to the outside evidence,
other than that it can be explored if desired. In terms of triples,
the fact that the tag has a meaningURI may be more generic than SKOS
seems to be, but it makes the system very useful IMO.

> > or they could just tag without semantics. Personally I haven't noticed
> > many ontologies that are encoded with the SKOS scheme, so enforcing
> > that would seem excessively restrictive also.
> >
> >
> Taxonomies, not ontologies (SKOS is a taxonomy that helps people
> describing taxonomies).

Apples and oranges to me :)

> Excessive I am not sure; not the best thing to do: possibly. We are
> really discussing about pros and cons here.


> > How do you envisage the user process for this to occur? Does someone
> >
> Exactly the same way as the current MOAT.
> > have to build a category/subject for every tag they may want to use?
> >
> Same as here. A dataset is used for this (currently DBPedia)
> > Folksonomies are successful because they are easy and generic. Normal
> > people like simple.
> >
> Yeah, it is as simple as the current MOAT.

Does it allow arbitrary URI's to be inserted as meanings? If it
doesn't then it seems to be at least a little more complex, or less
expressive depending on how you look at it.

> > I might be confused by the references to concept. As I see it you are
> >
> What I am thinking too :)
> > giving meaning to a text-string, which may not be an abstract concept
> > at all. It could be a concrete thing. Which seems to be at a higher
> > level than skos:concept, which seems to only include abstract
> > categories. I don't see why owl:Thing can't replace skos:concept, and
> > why from there you can't go to replacing it with a generic
> > rdf:Resource range. Folksonomy tag's aren't only abstract is what I am
> > trying to get at.
> >
> Question: can a named entity mean something (so, being related as the
> essence of a meaning (like in MOAT)).

Its a philosophical question, and I don't think it should be enforced
at the moat ontology level. I would hate to break someones reasoner by
including a URI in the meaning slot that didn't conform to the skos
set of predicates.

> I have some doubts about that.
> So, does it make sense to say: I have a tag "physics" that has a meaning
> that is represented by the URI of "Albert Einstein"? Does Albert really
> *mean* "physics"? I don't think so, but this could be possible with the
> current ontology.
> This is what I am thinking about right now.

If in their case they meant to relate physics to einstein in
particular I could see why they may want to do it. In another case
someone may tag physics and relate it to condensed matter physics,
which is again reasonable. It would still be possible to do this in a
restricted skos system BTW, so the issue isn't fully solved.

>From my perspective it would be just as useful to use a URI without
having to either know that it conforms to skos ways, or that it has a
definite meaning implied past being effectively linked with a short
tag description.

I envisage moat to be used for effectively linking the semantic web
together with folksonomies without people having to do much more than
they currently do. I don't see a particular categorised web happening
because of it, just nice seeAlso type links that people can follow to
find more information. It would be nice not to have to create another
ontology, or violate an existing one in order to perform general
linking using the system.

Semantic web should be just as democratic as the normal web (to put
some political opinions into it) :)

Peter Ansell
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 01:58:57 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:42:02 UTC