- From: Peter Mika <pmika@yahoo-inc.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:21:51 +0200
- To: François Dongier <francois.dongier@gmail.com>
- CC: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Andraz Tori <andraz@zemanta.com>, Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>, public-lod@w3.org
Maybe others can comment as well, but I do think it's an important piece of information, e.g. to determine recently popular tags. Cheers, Peter François Dongier wrote: > 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 > <mailto:danny.ayers@gmail.com>> wrote: > > 2009/6/12 Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk <mailto: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 > <http://del.icio.us> taggings into > Richard's Tag Ontology. del.icio.us <http://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 > >
Received on Friday, 12 June 2009 14:23:26 UTC