Re: Two concrete/practical cookbook examples of Semantic Tags

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote:

> 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><
>> 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><
>> 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><
>> 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<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.
>

I think I can live with recommending that construct, I reach the same goal
without misusing SpecificResource and with less triples.
I am not sure about that use of faof:isPrimaryTopicOf though.