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

Re: [ANN] MOAT

From: Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2008 08:20:53 -0500
Message-id: <47949C35.7070402@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 Interest Group <semantic-web@w3.org>

Hi Peter
> 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
>   
No no, it was about the meaning of the tag, and not the tag itself :)


(something is tagged) --- tag --- meaning ---- concept of the meaning.
> rdf:resource, which is unless I am really really confused what is
> currently being used.
>   

Yeah
>
> 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.
>
>   

No, at least, I don't think so based on what Alex wrote on MOAT's web site.

It is why each meaning is linked to a person that linked the tag with 
its meaning. If you check the cardinality of a Meaning, then you will 
notice that there have to be a "maker".


Semi-supervised system because it seems that a MOAT server send you a 
list of possible meaning for each of your tag, then you choose the ones 
you want to link a meaning with a tag.

> 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.
>
>   
Yeah, totally agree. Terminology is always the problem, and reaching a 
consensus is the worse part of any such projects :)

> 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.
>
>   
Not the tag that has a meaningURI, but a "meaning" :)

But the real question is there: does a meaning is a concept only, or 
anything? It is the question we have to investigate with pros and cons :)

> 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.
>
>   
Currently yes it does. It is one of the problem I have with it.

>> 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
>   
It could at some level, explicitly by not authorizing anything to be a 
meaning. So this could helps reasoners a bit.

> 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.
>
>   
No, it is not :)
> >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.
>
>   
Possibly. But in that case, you can query the system to get a list of 
tags related to a specific meaning. This is where the whole thing is 
powerful! :)

> 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
>   
There is one more step though (linking a tag with meaning(s)

> 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.
>
>   
But there is no meaning with a seeAlso. Possibly if we think about 
browsing, but not really if we think about querying the dataset.

> Semantic web should be just as democratic as the normal web (to put
> some political opinions into it) :)
>
>   
Sure, but it doesn't mean that we shouldn't take some time to get things 
done properly :)



Take care,


Fred
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 13:55:32 GMT

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