- From: Stefano Mazzocchi <stefanom@mit.edu>
- Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2005 21:31:58 -0400
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>, semantic-web@w3.org
Danny Ayers wrote: > On Apr 6, 2005 6:56 PM, Stefano Mazzocchi <stefanom@mit.edu> wrote: > > Hi Stefano, glad you're chipping in. My pleasure if I can be helpful. > 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. Sure, "grouping" is fundamental and the whole point of categorization is leading toward a form of clustering, but I'm not sure that using XML namespaces is the best way to achieve that in the folksologies space. > 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 - As I wrote in my blog post, I think that 'semantic' URI are going to harm you later on. But I also agree that this is just a subjective matter. > 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. Glad to find agreement here: I wish the handle/DOI/LSDI people would recognize that as well ;-) -- Stefano Mazzocchi Research Scientist Digital Libraries Research Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology location: E25-131C 77 Massachusetts Ave telephone: +1 (617) 253-1096 Cambridge, MA 02139-4307 email: stefanom at mit . edu -------------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Thursday, 7 April 2005 01:32:01 UTC