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

Re: Two concrete/practical cookbook examples of Semantic Tags

From: Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 17:18:49 +0000
Message-ID: <CACLxDV4=AJHxGhuySr3_TQpYT9MwfbxF4ZWLu7YfaudGF8NBaA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:14 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.
>

If we want to allow/recommend a particular relation, I think the broader
the better in this case. Why not to use one of the skos closeMatch,
relatedMatch, etc. that Paolo used for Qualifiers in AO?

Leyla


>
> 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 17:19:37 UTC

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