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

Re: Two concrete/practical cookbook examples of Semantic Tags

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 09:14:05 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUExFKSFoDTvKeZF=sAfiOtC5p2RBbvEh827J=LHYhPFgA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
I'm sympathetic to the argument regarding Specific Resources not being
intended for this sort of thing.

foaf:primaryTopic has the potential to confuse things as it's functional.
>From the spec:
    "The primaryTopic property is functional: for any document it
applies to, it can have at most one value."

Meaning that two annotators couldn't use the same document URI for
different semantics.  Of course, we don't know what they mean by a
document as a semantic tag *anyway*, otherwise we'd just use the non
information resource URI :)

foaf:page / foaf:topic doesn't have this functional requirement.

Rob

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 8:59 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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>
>>>
>>>         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.
>
>
> 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.
>
>
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 16:14:32 UTC

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