- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2005 20:33:25 +0200
- 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