- From: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jun 2009 12:50:28 +0100
- To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <swlists-040405@champin.net>
- Cc: public-lod@w3.org
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 12:37 +0100, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: > So the design of Common Tag implies that Tag resources should not be > "reused" across different tagging actions, which IMHO makes them quite > different from Newman's Tags (and close to Tagging, in fact). I reached a similar conclusion. As the commontag mailing list doesn't have public archives yet, here's a quote from a recent message I posted there: > On Thu, 2009-06-18 at 08:43 -0700, Alexandre Passant wrote: > > > A Tag in common tag is a tag a seen in Newman's ontology. > > Technically that's true, but in practise I think the two concepts of a > Tag will probably be used quite differently. > > Assuming you give a Tag a URI, then in Richard Newman's ontology (and > SKOS from which his inherits), the Tag is reusable. It's possible to > say that: > > <http://example.com/docs/1> > tags:taggedWithTag > <http://example.com/tags/u2#concept> . > > <http://example.com/docs/2> > tags:taggedWithTag > <http://example.com/tags/u2#concept> . > > But with Common Tag you can't do that without implying that the tag > dates are the same, and (if you use subclasses of ctag:Tag) the > tagging method (author, reader, robot) was the same. > > A ctag:Tag is essentially a blend between a tags:Tag and a > tags:Tagging. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it may make > mapping between the two schemas more challenging. -- Toby A Inkster <mailto:mail@tobyinkster.co.uk> <http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
Received on Tuesday, 23 June 2009 11:51:17 UTC