W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2015

RE: What happened to semantic tagging?

From: Hugo Manguinhas <Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 09:15:01 +0000
To: Benjamin Young <bigbluehat@hypothes.is>
CC: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, W3C Public Annotation List <public-annotation@w3.org>, Randall Leeds <randall@bleeds.info>
Message-ID: <6D0598B03E7E9848A4287E110919B4BA0112ADDB@MBX-SRV-P200.wpakb.kb.nl>
Hi Benjamin,

Using a @graph will introduce an additional complexity for such a simple pattern, specially because we don't know the actual property (in some cases it simply is not applicable) to be used in the rdf:Statement.

About our requirements, we are developing an Annotation Server that must be capable of storing and serving annotations coming from different client applications. In particular, some tools allow the users to tag our objects with simple text and any sort of HTTP link, while in others the user (can also be a machine, e.g. a NERD tool) can only tag an object using a controled vocabulary (e.g. a SKOS vocabulary)... the relevance of distinguishing between the two is (for example) that the latter we can dereference the resource to obtain additional information while the others we cannot. We can also make requests to "discover", but we would prefer to have it explicit.

Best regards,
Hugo


________________________________
From: Benjamin Young [bigbluehat@hypothes.is]
Sent: 06 November 2015 15:27
To: Hugo Manguinhas
Cc: Paolo Ciccarese; W3C Public Annotation List; Randall Leeds
Subject: Re: What happened to semantic tagging?

Given that the SemanticTag intent is to add to the graph, it may be best for us to explore places to put that in the JSON-LD such that it has that express meaning--and not shoe horn it into a place meant for something less "meaningful."

This came up in recent conversations with Randall (CC'd), and the summary was essentially: "boy wouldn't it be nice if more formats understood named graphs"--see JSON-LD's `@graph` construct:
http://www.w3.org/TR/json-ld/#named-graphs

As specified currently, I think you could use the `tagging` role + `source` to express what we previously had using `page`.

However, if you're adding statements about the target directly, then...I'd just use RDF as it is by adding statements to that portion of the JSON-LD or providing an additional `@graph` object.

Granted...there may be something here I'm missing that you need for your use case(s), so feedback welcome! :)

On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 9:16 AM, Hugo Manguinhas <Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu<mailto:Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>> wrote:
Hi Paolo,

Thanks for your reply!

To be honest I am still a bit ceptic on the introduction of roles to bodies and targets in the new spec since at such level it would be more natural to understand them as a form of classification (using @type) than a motivation/role...

But coming back to the semantic tagging, how can one now distinguish between a "semantic" (machine readable, e.g. dbp) resource and a webpage (previously represented using the foaf:page property)? of course, assuming that the role tagging is used for both cases....

Best regards,

________________________________
From: Paolo Ciccarese [paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com<mailto:paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>]
Sent: 06 November 2015 14:34
To: Hugo Manguinhas
Cc: W3C Public Annotation List
Subject: Re: What happened to semantic tagging?

Hi Hugo,
Semantic tagging is still present but it is achieved through roles, if you look at the list of the changes this is the entry: Align Tags and SemanticTags with roles for body and target.

You might want to look at this section:
http://www.w3.org/TR/2015/WD-annotation-model-20151015/#roles-for-external-resources

Best,
Paolo


On Fri, Nov 6, 2015 at 5:29 AM, Hugo Manguinhas <Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu<mailto:Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>> wrote:
Dear all,

As I was looking through the recently published version of the spec, I noticed that there is no reference to semantic tagging of resources as was in the previous version. I was wondering if it was retracted from the spec, or if there is another way to model it in this spec.

Btw, I have dig up this thread from September that debates some issues around it: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-annotation/2015Sep/0184.html, but would like to ask/confirm with you if this was the direction taken...

Thanks in advance!

Best regards,


Hugo Manguinhas
Technical R&D Coordinator

T: +31 (0)70 314 0967<tel:%2B31%20%280%2970%20314%200967>
M:
E: Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu<mailto:Hugo.Manguinhas@europeana.eu>
Skype: hugo.manguinhas


Be part of Europe's online cultural movement - join the Europeana Network Association: http://bit.ly/NetworkAssociation

 #AllezCulture!
Disclaimer: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this email. Please notify the sender immediately by email if you have received this email by mistake and delete this email from your system.




--
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
Principal Knowledge and Software Engineer at PerkinElmer Innovation Lab
Assistant Professor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5156-2703
Received on Tuesday, 10 November 2015 09:15:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:42 UTC