W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Tag ontology RFC

From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:33:25 +0200
Message-ID: <1f2ed5cd05040611332c7db029@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefanom@mit.edu>
Cc: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>, semantic-web@w3.org

On Apr 6, 2005 6:56 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi <stefanom@mit.edu> wrote:

Hi Stefano, glad you're chipping in. I need to think about your other
points some more, but I've an immediate response to this bit:

> The idea of 'grouping-via-namespace' is very XMLish and not sure applies
> very well here, 

Grouping *names* by namespace is a pretty fundamental idea,
irrespective of how XML/RDF does it. I think it applies well here as
it provides an easy way of creating tag lexicons, take these sets:

The del.icio.us "community" tags:

http://del.icio.us/tag/semantic
http://del.icio.us/tag/web
...

The community tags as used by me:

http://del.icio.us/danja/semantic
http://del.icio.us/danja/web
...

Now at present, I haven't got terms defined anywhere in my own
namespace/domain corresponding to these, although I do have:

http://dannyayers.com/archives/author/site-admin/skos.rdf#c2

which is the intersection of the meaning associated with the terms
"semantic" and "web" as used by me (which are equivalent to
http://del.icio.us/danja/semantic and http://del.icio.us/danja/web),
and there are a bunch of resource instances which are found carrying
that classification:

http://dannyayers.com/archives/category/virtual-world/semantic-web

All the names above are HTTP-gettable URIs, but the del.icio.us style
results in a much more convenient syntax.

Digressing a little, (heh, before I've thought about your points), the
logical and human semantics are obviously open for discussion, but I
do think there's an even simpler pragmatic interpretation available -

Take a blog item, http://example.org/blog/blah. It turns up in the RSS
feed (abbreviated) as:

http://example.org/blog/blah rdf:type rss:item

now Morten's FOAF Output is currently providing the following kind of
thing for my named categories:

http://example.org/blog/blah dc:subject xxx:conceptX
and
xxx:conceptX rdf:type skos:Concept

which is quite indirect. I'm wondering what the harm would be in saying: 

http://example.org/blog/blah rdf:type xxx:tagX
and
xxx:tagX rdf:type x:Tag
(and
xxx:tagX rdfs:label "tagx")

with the human interpretation that the blog item is in the class of
things tagged with "tagX".

but at the end of the day, what's important for
> interoperability is that the identifiers for your tags are globally
> unique, the rest is just personal taste.

Indeed.

Cheers,
Danny.

-- 

http://dannyayers.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 April 2005 18:33:28 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:44:52 UTC