- From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:08:49 +0100
- 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: http://xmlns.com/foaf/spec/#term_isPrimaryTopicOf Again, I strongly believe trying to address such generic concept/document problems into the OA machinery itself can only bring problems. Antoine
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 15:09:19 UTC