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 16:47:22 +0100
Message-ID: <510FD80A.1020308@few.vu.nl>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
CC: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On 2/4/13 4:36 PM, Paolo Ciccarese wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl <mailto:aisaac@few.vu.nl>> wrote:
>     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 <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 <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 <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.
> I am not sure I understand what you are saying. Are you suggesting to not include Semantic Tags?

Well, I don't have strong opinion on this. I believe we can do without and that oa:Tag is enough, but others apparently don't think so...

> Could you take one of my examples and rephrase it as you would do it?

In http://www.w3.org/community/openannotation/wiki/Bookmarking_and_Tagging_a_Webpage#Open_Annotation_Representation
ex:spres1 a oa:SpecificResource , oa:SemanticTag ;
    oa:hasSource MGI:88059 .
ex:spres2 a oa:SpecificResource , oa:SemanticTag ;
    oa:hasSource OMIM:104760 .
should be imo:
ex:spres1 a oa:Tag ;
    foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf MGI:88059 .
ex:spres2 a oa:Tag ;
    faof:isPrimaryTopicOf OMIM:104760 .

With the above caveat: I am not strongly against having SemanticTag instead of oa:Tag, if others believe it is absolutely necessary.

Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 15:47:51 UTC

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