Re: Last Ultimate Final Call :)

Leyla,
I've updated the description to better reflect that:
http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/SE_Semantically_Tagging_an_Image

Let me know if that is better or if it is still confusing.
Paolo

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Leyla,
> we have been discussed about that issue and we tried to explain it in the
> Introduction:
> http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/#Introduction
>
> "An annotation is considered to be a set of connected resources, typically
> including a body and target, and conveys that the body is related to the
> target. The exact nature of this relationship changes according to the
> intention of the annotation, but most frequently conveys that the body is
> somehow "about" the target. Other possible relationships include that the
> body is an identifier for the target, provides a representation of the
> target, or classifies the target in some way."
>
> In other words, while in annotations such as comments you can say that the
> body is somehow about the target, with a semantic tag I would say we
> 'classify' the target.
>
> Does this help?
>
> Paolo
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:10 PM, Leyla Jael García Castro <
> leylajael@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> My doubt has probably been already solved in some thread but did not find
>> it.
>> I just saw the semantic tag example at
>> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/SE_Semantically_Tagging_an_Image
>>
>> What would be the relation between the tagged image and the dbpedia
>> entity used as semantic tag? In some how I have the subject (it would be
>> the target of the annotation) and the object (it would be the body of the
>> annotation), but what would be the predicate?
>>
>> Understanding that could maybe help me to better follow the discussion
>> about the semantic tags.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Leyla
>> On Feb 1, 2013 6:39 PM, "Paolo Ciccarese" <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> No doubt that is elegant solution with respect of the rest of the model.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
>>>> <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> > On Fri, Feb 1, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> >> > So how about recommending to do #tag on the URI of the page?
>>>> >> > Like: http://omim.org/entry/104760#tag
>>>> >> > Again, not ideal but it could help. No?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> This is what we recommend already, using a different URI  and linking
>>>> >> it to the document :)
>>>> >
>>>> > Wait, that is exactly my point. Not 'a different URI' in general,
>>>> that would
>>>> > create a mess I believe.
>>>> > How do we feel in pushing for a specific way of using "the different
>>>> URI"
>>>> > #something?
>>>>
>>>> I don't like it, especially with the clarification in RDF 1.1 that
>>>> fragments identify the element within the hosting format, not a
>>>> semantic resource.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf11-concepts/#section-fragID
>>>>
>>>> So if there was a "tag" in the underlying document, then it would
>>>> refer to that, not the use of the URI as a semantic tag.  It still has
>>>> the same collision problems.
>>>>
>>>> The clean way, IMO, is:
>>>>
>>>> <anno1> a oa:Annotation ;
>>>>   oa:hasBody <tagSpRes1> ;
>>>>   oa:hasTarget <target1> .
>>>>
>>>> <tagSpRes1> a oa:SpecificResource , oa:[Semantic]Tag ;
>>>>   oa:hasSource <http://omim.org/entry/104760> ;
>>>>
>>>> Which is just a clarification of what we already say in the doc, that
>>>> you mint a new URI and link it to the original URI.
>>>>
>>>> Rob
>>>>
>>>
>>>