W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-openannotation@w3.org > February 2013

Re: Two concrete/practical cookbook examples of Semantic Tags

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:08:49 +0100
Message-ID: <510FCF01.1030708@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On 2/4/13 3:40 PM, Paolo Ciccarese wrote:
> Two concrete/practical examples of Semantic Tags.
> Please, just look at the RDF and the figure, I still working on the text.
> 1) A DBpedia entry used as semantic tag on an image:
> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/SE_Semantically_Tagging_an_Image
> In this case I can attach oa:Tag (oa:SemanticTag?) to the URI directly as it is a DBpedia 'resource.
> 2) Two URIs used as semantic tags while bookmarking a webpage
> http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/Bookmarking_and_Tagging_a_Webpage#Open_Annotation_Representation
> The URIs also identify the HTML page for those entities so I used the SpecificResource construct as Rob suggested.
> Should we keep two different constructs?
> Comments?

As already said I don't like the Specific Resource pattern. It messes the message of Specific Resources, by letting one think semantic tags can be obtained by "refining" a source, the same way that other specifiers do. But in the case of semantic tags of course there's nothing analogous to selectors, states, etc. Which shows well in your example: there's only oa:hasSource attached to your tag, which renders a bit absurd the use of the SR pattern.

If one wants to tie a semantic tag to a document that is very closely connected to it (one could say the document defines the concept) I'd recommend using something else. For example foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf:
Again, I strongly believe trying to address such generic concept/document problems into the OA machinery itself can only bring problems.

Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 15:09:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:38:22 UTC