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

Re: Semantic Tags (was several threads)

From: Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 11:04:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CABevsUHYzMEW5mUiLs+tR9W5XwjzFc+VxXEcOVw0+5EjC5vjyw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
Cc: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>, public-openannotation@w3.org
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
<paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 2.  (Antoine) Use a oa:SemanticTag class, with foaf:primaryTopicOf.
>> Object from Rob: it's inverse functional, so the same document
>> couldn't be used for different semantic concepts. As the URI for the
>> tag resource is likely going to be a UUID or a blank node, this could
>> have unfortunate repercussions.
> -1 The 'inverse functional' constraint is too restrictive
>> 3.  (Rob) Use oa:SemanticTag class, with foaf:page.  This is the same
>> as 2. but with a looser predicate that isn't functional.
> The last one is compact, does not interfere with other constructs, gives a
> little structure without too much commitment, is more declarative.


> And I like how it reads for cases in which the URI is actually a page or
> HTML document
> ex:semtag a oa:SemanticTag ;
>   foaf:page <http://omim.org/entry/104760> .
> The inverse I think also makes sense:
> <http://omim.org/entry/104760> foaf:topic ex:semtag

I think so too.

> However, for URis such as the DBpedia ones, are we still planning to do:
> <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Eiffel_Tower> a oa:SemanticTag. ?
> or to adopt the above model?

Good question!

Stian brought this up. I don't think that there are any conflicts,
because oa:SemanticTag when it really is a concept URI just states
But I'm willing to be wrong! The class is really about the
*identifier* not the *identified object*.

For example, would clients be confused if they saw an Annotation that
targeted a resource, say the dbpedia URI for Paris, and the RDF
claimed that Paris was of class oa:SemanticTag ?  I think this
actually *helps*, as the client would know not to dereference the URI
looking for a document.  But perhaps we could have a better name for
the class?

Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 18:04:48 UTC

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