- From: Phil Archer <parcher@icra.org>
- Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2007 17:15:58 +0100
- To: public-powderwg@w3.org
- CC: SIOC-Dev <sioc-dev@googlegroups.com>, public-swd-wg@w3.org
Hi Kjetil, This looks terrific. Two things to say in quick response (OK, so it's 26 hours since you posted this but you know what I mean...) Others have raised the issue of including/supporting/linking POWDER and tags. Clearly it's something we should do so I'm delighted that you're already doing it! Secondly - when I get round to it?? You think I don't have a vocabulary for describing nudity? My dear fellow, my I point you in the direction of a plain text version of the ICRA vocabulary [1] and its RDF schema equivalent [2]. While I'm at it, I can also direct you to the QUATRO project vocabulary [3] [4], which is designed for use by trustmarks but is fully open to any usage. Cheers for now Phil. [1] http://www.icra.org/vocabulary/ [2] http://www.icra.org/rdfs/vocabularyv03 [3] http://www.quatro-project.org/QuatroVocabulary.htm [4] http://purl.org/quatro/elements/1.0/ (ooh, that looks a bit like the DC namespace doesn't it...) Kjetil Kjernsmo wrote: > Hi all! > > Sorry for the cross-posting, but this is a topic that I think is in the > intersection between POWDER, SIOC and SKOS, thus I would like to hear > opinions from several groups. Reply-To is tentatively set to > public-powderwg@w3.org, but post as you see appropriate (I guess > anti-spam measures could make this nasty...) > > I intend to support POWDER content labels on my.opera.com, since we live > with people posting nudes and stuff. Censorship is a touchy issue. > However, rigid taxonomies have never been popular among users, tags are > however, so I intend that people tag their stuff, and then map that tag > to a POWDER description. The basic infrastructure for doing this is > allready in place: > http://my.opera.com/semweb/blog/2007/03/08/marrying-folksonomies-and-taxonomies > > However, the current interface is now rather complex: > http://my.opera.com/semweb/blog/2007/03/23/complexities-of-tag-to-vocabulary-mappin > to the extent where I think it would confuse many users and thus be of > little value. > > So, this is how I imagine it done: A user has tags, modelled with SKOS > concepts. Thus every tag gets a URI, > http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude > for example. Then, this tag needs to be bound to a resource on one hand > and a POWDER description on the other. > > sioc:topic comes to mind, thus > <http://my.opera.com/username/albums/foo/nude.jpg> sioc:topic > <http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude> . > > Since ICRA/FOSI will have created the vocabulary about nudity for us, > all I want to do is to link to the description, that I hope Phil one > day will create (this is just an example!): > > <http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude> ex:means > <http://www.fosi.org/rdf/descriptions#just-nude> . > > The first obvious thing is that I don't know what predicate that should > be used to link the SKOS concept to the description. However, that > could be another issue for the open SKOS issue in the core guide as > http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/#secmodellingrdf > If this approach to tag-to-URI mapping is feasible, I would be happy if > something like that went into SKOS. The implementation I currently have > on my.opera.com is allready a use case for this. > > The next problem is that I'm not linking a resource directly to a > description, thus making SPARQL queries and the general model more > complex. The alternative, as I see it, is to make the UI more complex > on the tagging services, but I don't think that's a good approach. > > Thus, I think the minimum graph to link a resource to a POWDER > description is > <http://my.opera.com/username/albums/foo/nude.jpg> sioc:topic > <http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude> . > <http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude> ex:means > <http://www.fosi.org/rdf/descriptions#just-nude> . > > and an user agent would have to understand that. I was myself hoping to > get away with a single triple when I started to work on this, but as > noted in my blog, it is a matter of who gets to deal with the > complexity. So, is this the right balance? > > > Note that this approach does not at all use the content grouping that > the POWDER group discusses at length, it just links resource to > description. Of course, for large-scale workflows, content grouping is > important, but I think "the long tail" may be more comfortable with > this approach. It would be very interesting if we could get del.icio.us > involved, for example. > > Cheers, > > Kjetil -- Phil Archer Chief Technical Officer, Family Online Safety Institute w. http://www.fosi.org/people/philarcher/
Received on Friday, 13 April 2007 16:16:00 UTC