- From: Paolo Ciccarese <paolo.ciccarese@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 16:57:06 -0500
- To: Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: public-openannotation@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAFPX2kAtBaDPFCB95=7poAYc0XD10d4FiQd=cD7PXniYq7==NA@mail.gmail.com>
And the type of the body in the same figure Figure 2.1.3.1. Textual Tag should be oa:Tag On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 4:54 PM, Antoine Isaac <aisaac@few.vu.nl> wrote: > 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<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<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<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 2.1.3.2? I > suppose it's rather for Figure 2.1.3.2 > > Best, > > Antoine > > [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! > > -- Dr. Paolo Ciccarese http://www.paolociccarese.info/ Biomedical Informatics Research & Development Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital Member of the MGH Biomedical Informatics Core +1-857-366-1524 (mobile) +1-617-768-8744 (office) CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s), may contain information that is considered to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to any other party without the permission of the sender. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2013 21:57:33 UTC