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 14:16:32 +0000
Message-ID: <f0e160660801210616s7e9b7741m7b0202f5f106f0a3@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, moat-dev <moat-dev@groupe.google.com>

On Jan 21, 2008 1:51 PM, Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com> wrote:
>
> 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?

Actually my goal is not to link tags together, so I will not adress
that issue in this ontology.
But in that case, I think we can rely on the SCOT ontology, that have
properties to link tag objects.
I have to see how it fits there (maybe the moat:Tag class as a
subclass of tag:Tag and scot:tag)

>
> 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?

I thaught that's optimal for the ontology not to restrict the range to
be (or "become") a skos:Concept but to be the more open as possible.
Not especially with dbpedia, but any knowledge base, since I first
used this for a internal project with its own ontologies.

>
> >> 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
>
> --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
> 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 14:17:05 GMT

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