- From: Frederick Giasson <fred@fgiasson.com>
- Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2008 19:52:33 -0500
- 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@w3.org
Hi Peter, > Personally I would prefer it to be Resource for better > interoperability with actual objects in the field. If people tagged > things to categorise them, as opposed to labelling them, then a > specific range might be relevant, but personally I just label when I > tag so it can be anything that I am labelling the item against. If the > actual URI is a skos:Concept then you can effectively allow for it > still when you make up a query filter on it. > > One thing: it is not about what to tag (we can effectively tag anything). It is about how to link a meaning to a concept. Intuitively I would say that a meaning is linked to a concept (and not anything that is a resource). > If you make it a moat:concept you add another level of complexity and > reduce the scalability IMO, as one has to augment the URI which > otherwise could have been completely separate from the system. Simple > is good. > > There could be a case for having moat:concept with extra annotations > available locally on the concept, but it seems easier to keep the > provenance directly given to the tag by the user context right next to > the meaningURI. > The idea is not to use meaningURI and use skos:subject (or whatever the property) to link a meaning to its concept. Just thinking aloud in this conversation. Take care, Fred
Received on Monday, 21 January 2008 00:53:00 UTC