Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention

Peter, maybe you could explain why you guys found it useful to date tagging
events in the first place. I suppose the point of it might be that it could
provide some context? If so, the date is only one aspect of the context and
probably not the richest one.

On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com> wrote:

> 2009/6/12 Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>:
>
> > Lest I be accused of nonconstructive criticism, a route to improving the
> > vocab would be to properly align CommonTag with existing ontologies by
> > dropping ctag:taggedDate altogether.
> >
> > Of all the terms defined by CommonTag, ctag:taggedDate is probably the
> > one with least value to most publishers, so this change would not only
> > help align CommonTag with other ontologies, but also serve to simplify
> > and streamline the spec.
> >
> > The description of tagging *events* could then be considered an
> > "advanced" use case, not directly supported by CommonTag. But given that
> > CommonTag would then be compatible with Richard Newman's ontology, and
> > MOAT, SCOT, etc, advanced users could go outside CommonTag to add this
> > extra meaning to their tags.
>
> Makes sense to me.
>
> While an RDFS/OWL inference based mapping between Richard's ontology
> and Common Tag may not be be possible right now, SPARQL CONSTRUCT
> could be an alternative.
>
> Note also Richard's ontology allows:
>
> <uri> tags:taggedWithTag <taguri> .
>
> SPARQL (SELECT or CONSTRUCT) across those alongside Common Tag
> taggings would be easy using OPTIONALs
>
> Just as a little in-practice datapoint, not long ago I set up a little
> proof-of-concept service [1] for pulling out del.icio.us taggings into
> Richard's Tag Ontology. del.icio.us's RSS 1.0 feed gets the date
> modelling wrong, funnily enough, so I was using XSLT on their API
> (code at [2]). Although some of the string manipulation bits were
> painful, the bit I decided to leave out because it was hard work was
> reconciling the lists of values that could be the subject of
> associatedTag.
>
> Overall I was left with the impression that Richard's ont could use
> simplifying, if it was possible to do this without breaking the
> potential for maximally capturing data about the tagging event. I'm
> optimistic the Common Tag mini-consortium can sort this one out :)
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
> [1] http://hyperdata.org/taglia/
> [2] http://n2.talis.com/svn/playground/danja/taglia/
>
>
> --
> http://danny.ayers.name
>
>