- From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:15:58 +0200
- To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Andraz Tori <andraz@zemanta.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Indeed, you cannot do this merging: a ctag:Tag refers to the tagging event. So the concepts they refer to (ctag:means) might be the same, the Tags are not. Cheers, Peter Yves Raimond wrote: > Hello! > > On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Danny Ayers<danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Really good to see this work! >> >> May be nothing, but...it appears the tagging date is associated with >> the tag. I assume most systems would want to infer that tags with the >> same meaning were equivalent (even though this isn't specified using >> IFPs or whatever). I'm a little concerned about what you'll get when >> merging different doc's data with this assumption of equivalence - >> >> <doc1> ctag:tagged [ >> a ctag:Tag >> ctag:taggingDate "2009-06-12" >> ctag:means <http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en/collaborative_tagging> ] . >> >> <doc2> ctag:tagged [ >> a ctag:Tag >> ctag:taggingDate "2009-06-13" >> ctag:means <http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en/collaborative_tagging> ] . >> >> -> >> >> [ a ctag:Tag >> ctag:taggingDate "2009-06-12" >> ctag:taggingDate "2009-06-13" >> ctag:means <http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en/collaborative_tagging> ] >> >> - which doesn't look very useful. >> >> > > > Yes, this indeed will give quite weird results. The tag ontology at > [1] tackles this issue nicely, by considering a tagging event and the > tag itself as two different entities. > > Cheers, > y > > [1] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/ > >
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 10:17:39 UTC