- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 09:40:33 -0500
- To: public-lod@w3.org
- Message-ID: <4EC66E61.6040900@openlinksw.com>
On 11/18/11 5:24 AM, Steffen Lohmann wrote: > On 17.11.2011 20:03, Richard Cyganiak wrote: >> Hi Steffen, >> >> On 17 Nov 2011, at 14:34, Steffen Lohmann wrote: >>> MUTO should thus not be considered as yet another tagging ontology >>> but as a unification of existing approaches. >> I'm curious why you decided not to include mappings (equivalentClass, >> subProperty etc) to the existing approaches. > > Good point, Richard. I thought about it but finally decided to > separate these alignments from the core ontology - therefore the "MUTO > Mappings Module" (http://muto.socialtagging.org/core/v1.html#Modules). > > SIOC and SKOS can be nicely reused but aligning MUTO with the nine > reviewed tagging ontologies is challenging and would result in a > number of inconsistencies. This is mainly due to a different > conceptual understanding of tagging and folksonomies in the various > ontologies. To give some examples: > > - Are tags with same labels merged in the ontology (i.e. are they one > instance)? > - Is the number of tags per tagging limited to one or not? > - In case of semantic tagging: Are single tags or complete taggings > disambiguated? > - How are the creators of taggings linked? > - Are tags from private taggings visible to other users or not? > > Apart from that, I would have risk that MUTO is no longer OWL Lite/DL > which I consider important for a tagging ontology (reasoning of > folksonomies). > > The current version of the MUTO Mappings Module provides alignments to > Newman's popular TAGS ontology (mainly for compatibility reasons). > Have a look at it and you'll get an idea of the difficulties in > correctly aligning MUTO with existing tagging ontologies. > > Best, > Steffen > Steffen, Mappings loaded, some links demonstrating effects: 1. http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpurl.org%2Fmuto%2Fcore%23hasCreator -- subPropertyOf relation with sioc:has_creator 2. http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frdfs.org%2Fsioc%2Fns%23has_creator -- SIOC ontology 3. http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openlinksw.com%2Fschemas%2Fgoogleplus%23comment_actor -- Google+ ontology 4. http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.openlinksw.com%2Fschemas%2Fgoogleplus%23Actor -- G+ ontology instance data. If I use your mapping ontology as basis for an inference rule, I won't need the steps above since the class instances will manifest for any classes in owl:equivalentClass relations. Same thing applies with our ontologies which map across many ontologies, basically the power of OWL inference enables one coral lots of instance data via inverse relations :-) BTW - you can substitute linkeddata.uriburner.com with lod.openlinksw.com re., URLs above and perform similar exploration against the larger and more powerful LOD Cloud cache instance we maintain. -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Company Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Personal Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca handle: @kidehen Google+ Profile: https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/about LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/kidehen
Attachments
- application/pkcs7-signature attachment: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 14:41:07 UTC