- From: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 20:31:24 +0100
- To: Seth Russell <russell.seth@gmail.com>
- Cc: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 10:07:16 -0800, Seth Russell <russell.seth@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Richard,
>
> It would be nice to have this ontology. One thing i would like to see
> in it would be something akin to a WordNet synset so that we could
> assert that some tag is a member of a set or synonyms. The triples
> might look something like this with the topic being a URI to the
> preferred tag according to somedomain.
>
> <http:://somedomain/?synset=folksonomy> contains "folksonomy".
> <http:://somedomain/?synset=folksonomy> contains "folksonomies".
>
> If we had such a database we could use it right now. What would be
> even keweler would be if delicious et al would allow us to create that
> db in the process of tagging. You should be able to grab somebodies
> synset and process it *interactively* against your own. Am i getting
> ahead of myself here?
It can all be done now - grab a triplestore.
The SKOS vocab can support synsets in various ways, directly like this:
<skos:Concept rdf:about="http://www.example.com/concepts#folksonomy">
<skos:prefLabel>folksonomy</skos:prefLabel>
<skos:altLabel>folksonomies</skos:altLabel>
<skos:altLabel>taggishness</skos:altLabel>
...
You can express mapping relationships between different (human)
vocabs/concept schemes in quite a few different ways (depending mostly
I guess on what you want to do with the stuff): using SKOS's
broader/narrower, RDF's subClassOf (and owl:equivalentClass) or
owl:sameAs.
Cheers,
Danny.
--
http://dannyayers.com
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 20:57:03 UTC