- 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