- From: ben syverson <w3@likn.org>
- Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 10:20:47 -0600
- To: semantic-web@w3.org
Hello all, With the recent tag ontology RFC and official announcement of "tagtriples," what are people's thoughts as to how tags fit into the goals of the Semantic Web? When I follow the "tag" metaphor, I think of a tiny bit of shorthand information temporarily elastic-banded to something else. The tag often has meaning in its specific context; in a furniture warehouse, a tag with four letters might be an inventory code. Yet a nearly identical furniture warehouse just across town might use a different annotation to mean the same thing. Furthermore, the four letters might have a separate meaning to someone else (such as if they spell out "DUCK"). Who do you trust? The majority? How is this the tag metaphor something to aspire to? Tags seem very interesting for organizing bookmarks and grouping photos, but will you ever be able to carry out any inference with them? Because the tags themselves are ambiguous, you wind up with all the old problems of distinguishing "python" from "Python," etc. Add to that the issue of millions of users creating tags, and you have a nightmare of overlap and duplication. What can be done with the triple "Becca plays JazzFlute," by a non-human? The reasoner can then see that someone has said "JazzFlute type MusicalStyle," but someone else has said "JazzFlute is SceneInTheMovieAnchorman." The latter statement would be increasingly more likely if we were to stick to strict triples, as in tagtriples. How would you say "there is a scene in the movie Anchorman that depicts Jazz flute" without Bnodes? I'm not trying to be contrary; I'm just curious, as a newbie, what the advocates of tags have in mind for them in a broad SW context. - ben
Received on Wednesday, 23 March 2005 16:20:50 UTC