Re: [ANN] MOAT

Hi Alex,

> (NB: Actually, since the Tag extends the Tag Ontology, Tag is a
> subclass of skos:Concept)
>
>   

Ok but in that case, how a concept will be related to other concepts? By 
this I mean: each tag will be a concept without any relationship with 
other concepts. So, the graph of tags from this ontology will create a 
graph with unlinked nodes, thousands of them?

It is sure that they can be put into relation, but given the fact that 
people tag anything for anything, I doubt they really will.
>
> 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.
>   

Yeah it is what I thought was the reason.
 Meanly to be able to use DBPedia.


However, if you would have your hands on a well defined skos meaning 
structure, would you consider using skos:Concept has range?

So my question is: what drive this decision: the fact that DBPedia gives 
a good demo and is available, or really because it is what is optimal 
for the ontology?


>> 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 ?
>
>   
Working on the name is essential I think (personally do not like 
meaningURI :) )

moat:mean


Meaning -- mean --> something
> 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)
>
>   

Good.


Take care,


Fred