Re: POWDER tags use case rewritten and rdf:type requirement

Kjetil Kjernsmo a écrit :
> All,
>
> The discussion around SKOS with the SWD gave me some inspiration, and I 
> found that the tags.r.us use case [1] needs some elaboration.
>
> It is quite clear that it is hard to create something as generic as I 
> need for this tagging thing, and I need to argue some more about the 
> usefulness of the feature. Also, the tags.r.us use case could be a 
> little more imaginatively written, so I propose the following for an 
> updated working group note:
>
> [[[
> The social book-marking site tags.r.us allows their users to tag any 
> resource and so provides a service through which people can annotate 
> both their own and others' resources.
>
> Anders, a zoologist and tags.r.us user, finds a website about the dahut, 
> an allegedly undescribed animal that lives in the French Alps. Anders 
> wants to make sure the it is understood by readers that this is a 
> fictional character, but interesting to understand the full spectrum of 
> cryptozoological thinking, and thus tags it "fictional".  
>
> The word "fictional" is not very useful without context, so to enable 
> such user-defined tags to be shared with others, tags.r.us allows users 
> to assign a link between their own tags and a Description Resource, 
> that provides the context that it is about an alleged fictional animal. 
> An agent can thus use the tag as appropriate, processing the explicit 
> semantics provided by the DR but perhaps presenting other users with 
> Anders' original tags.
> ]]]
>
> I think this should also answer Antoine's question if it is a 
> important need, yes, I think it is since a tag without context is 
> often totally useless to anyone other than the tagger himself. In this 
> case, it would be reasonable for the tagger to tag simply "fictional", 
> but that would only be useful when the context of linking that to the 
> description is available.
>   
Actually I was not questioning the need for linking a tag to its 
context, but the need to do it using a single property. In your case you 
were hinting at two very different cases of contextualizing:
- by giving a real-world reference (a resource standing for a person)
- by giving a more complex definition at the conceptual level (the 
Powder description of a concept)
I agree with these two, but I was sceptical about the need (linked to UI 
simplification motivations) to gather the two things under a same 
modelling umbrella.
By the way just think of an example where I have a document about 'Henry 
VIII'. I might want to contextualize the tag both by linking to another 
more complete concept representing henry VIII, and by refering to the 
'real' foaf:person henry VIII. Would such a situation be realistic in 
your case?
> [...]
>
> I hope this gives SWD a bit more to work on with respect to SKOS usage 
> in tagging. I still think it is useful to have a very generic property, 
> since, face it, those sites that employ tagging will not do a lot to 
> create elaborate mapping systems that uses the full power of RDF. Also, 
> since I have only three hours to implement it myself, I think that I 
> will be stuck with skos:it. I'll document the discussion, though.
>   
Be careful, *there is no skos:it at the moment in SKOS*! [1]
I would just recommend you to use your own property (or your own 
properties if you opt for the safer - in my opinion- way of representing 
the two links in a separate way), and then say that it is a subproperty 
of whatever SKOS 'official' property comes afterward. I don't like to 
speak this way on behalf of the SWD group, but I think we should be 
aware of people not introducing things in the namespace that have not 
been accepted.

Cheers,

Antoine

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-skos-core-spec
>
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/powder-use-cases/#tagsrus
> [2] http://dev.kjernsmo.net/tagget-drammen.png
>
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kjetil
>

Received on Friday, 22 June 2007 09:52:21 UTC