Re: Semantic tags

Hi Rob,

On 4/1/15 7:03 PM, Robert Sanderson wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 1, 2015 at 5:01 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>
>     This is about semantic tags, in the case one tags an object with a (SKOS) concept: the current solution [1] presents a form of indirection. I.e. the body of the annotation is now a blank node that refer to a resource (the concept), with a skos:related links between both. In the former Open Annotation spec [2], the body was directly the concept itself.
>
>     I have two questions:
>     - why the indirection? The OA pattern was simpler, and quite matching the intention of semantic tagging. when one tags, one doesn't create a new concept.
>
>
> The reasoning was that we didn't want to add a class (oa:SemanticTag) to any arbitrary non-information resource on the semantic web just because it was currently being used in that role for the annotation.  Eventually all resources would have the class and it would be worthless.  So the indirection is to solve that problem.
>

Well, I'd consider this not to be a big problem anyway...

But maybe a solution could be to remove this type altogether?
I think we had discussed it a couple of years ago for Open Annotation, hadn't we?
An  alternative would be to use another feature, for example an attribute of the Annotation itself, maybe a specific motivation (say, oa:semanticTagging as a skos:narrower of oa:tagging).
At the time of the original OA design, this other feature might have been discarded because typing the body (which was a the concept then) as oa:SemanticTag was a simple thing to do.
But if now we have the choice between introducing a specific motivation at the Annotation level or the indirection, I would go for the specific motivation...


>
>     - why skos:related? Given the sort of semantic tagging scenarios we (and I believe anyone else) have, the link is much stronger from a semantic perspective. I'd have expected skos:exactMatch.
>
>
> A good question, and one that I don't find the answer to immediately.  I think that exactMatch could be used instead of related, which does seem a much weaker statement.  The intended semantics of the relationship are similar to that of foaf:page, but instead the object is the concept directly.  Happy to go with your opinion on which predicate makes most sense there!
>


Yes skos:exactMatch seems fine. Better, in any case!

Cheers,

Antoine

Received on Friday, 3 April 2015 16:53:08 UTC