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

Re: [ANN] MOAT

From: Alexandre Passant <alex@passant.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 12:06:18 +0000
Message-ID: <f0e160660801210406xdcf5971h31f3ef26bc6516ad@mail.gmail.com>
To: sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
Cc: "Danny Ayers" <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, "Golda Velez" <gv@btucson.com>, "Linking Open Data" <linking-open-data@simile.mit.edu>, sioc-dev@groups.google.com, semantic-web@w3.org

Hi,

On Jan 20, 2008 2:47 PM, Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com> 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.
(NB: Actually, since the Tag extends the Tag Ontology, Tag is a
subclass of skos:Concept)

>
> 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).

Indeed, skos:Concept as a range wouldn't be ok, because I want people
to be able to use any URI as a meaning for their tag (i.e. what's in
their mind when using that tag in a given post context; eg I use the
tag "paris" -> in my mind this is "paris, france" -> I use the
specific URI from geonames), and not only a skos:Concept, but anything
from dbpedia, geonames (in this particular case this is a
skos:Concept), or existing knowledge base (eg: internal company
knowledge base with specific domain ontologies).
That's why the range is rdf:Resource, Fred.

>
> 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.

Exactly, that's why actually moat:Meaning is a kind of "reified"
object, that identifies only one meaning and the users that defines
it.
Then, if you ask for a tag and you get too much results, you can show
in priority meanings that have been set by our friends.
Using a simple relation won't make it possible, since you loose the
user information.
Of course, tags can have various Meaning(s).

> But I still believe that meaningURI could be changed to moat:concept, or
> something similar.
I have to think at the name maybe, but I think moat:concept will make
people think the range is a skos:Concept.
Any idea ?

I'll make some schemas this afternoon, I'll hope it will be more clear.
(I started a moat-dev googlegroup for this kind of discussions)

> thoughts Alex? Did I miss something?
I don't think so ;)

Alex.

NB: Danny, thanks for reporting my ugly datatype / object property
mistake. I fixed it.

>
>
> Thanks for the great work!
>
>
> Take care,
>
>
> Fred
>
>
>
>
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
> To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
> -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
>
>
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 12:06:30 GMT

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