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

Re: Semantic Tags (was several threads)

From: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 22:54:52 +0100
Message-ID: <51102E2C.5060506@few.vu.nl>
To: <public-openannotation@w3.org>
On 2/4/13 10:09 PM, Paolo Ciccarese wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:34 PM, Leyla Jael García Castro <leylajael@gmail.com <mailto:leylajael@gmail.com>> wrote:
>     Hi all,
>     On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 6:04 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com <mailto:azaroth42@gmail.com>> wrote:
>         On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 10:49 AM, Paolo Ciccarese
>         <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com <mailto:paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>> wrote:
>          > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Robert Sanderson <azaroth42@gmail.com <mailto: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.
>         :)
>     +1
>          > 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
>         that.
>         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?
>     I like the current name SemanticTag. I also think is ok.
>     Leyla
> +1 I like it to be explicit by declaring oa:SemantiTag

Hi all,

I think all arguments were quite rightly reflected. Except the fundamental point I wanted to make: OA should not mess with this! The beginning of the discussion on whether a functional property like foaf:primaryTopicOf is good or not shows it. Characterizing relations between documents and subjects can be a can of worm, which OA shouldn't open: we don't have the time, and it's not really in what I understand to be in the "mission". For the record for SKOS we renounced making recommendations on these links, even though we had "subjects" high in our priorities. And we did not give up without starting to explore it!

So in in my view, if you really want to show a pattern on this issue, it should be clear that it's not an absolute, deeply explored recommendation. I.e., the recommendation level should be CAN, at most.

Apart from this, I don't have any issue with typing DBPedia resources with oa:SemanticTag. It may look a bit weird, but with the understanding that oa:SemanticTag is a class with mainly a functional flavor [1], it should be alright.

And foaf:page seems ok. Much less dangerous than my foaf:primaryTopicOf, indeed.

I had a look at http://www.openannotation.org/spec/future/core.html#Tagging
Except for my point above on the level of recommendation, I think it's alright. There might be just a sort of typo. Isn't the figure title "Semantic Tag, referring to a Document" really fit for Figure I suppose it's rather for Figure



[1] as in "functionality", i.e, this property allows to have a 'slot' in a pattern. It's not the "formally functional" of foaf:isPrimaryTopicOf!
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 21:55:21 UTC

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