Re: Using tags for POWDER content labels

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