Hi Alex, >> Ok but in that case, how a concept will be related to other concepts? By >> this I mean: each tag will be a concept without any relationship with >> other concepts. So, the graph of tags from this ontology will create a >> graph with unlinked nodes, thousands of them? >> > > Actually my goal is not to link tags together, so I will not adress > that issue in this ontology. > But in that case, I think we can rely on the SCOT ontology, that have > properties to link tag objects. > I have to see how it fits there (maybe the moat:Tag class as a > subclass of tag:Tag and scot:tag) > > But in that case, how to make sure the related tags are rigthly related? By this I refers to: I have a tag "tag_a" that has a meaning "meaning_a" and "meaning_b" Then another person has a "tag_a" too with meaning "meaning_c" and "meaning_d". Now what if such a system link "tag_a" with "tag_b" and that "tab_b" is in conflict with the meaning given by me (so "meaning_b"). I fear that such a syste would link the links only according to the literal of the tag. When MOAT is interesting since it relates a literal to some of the meaning of that literal, in a context: - the context where the tag is used - the user that used that lateral to categorizes that thing. (so the cultural baggage and experience of the tagger will affect the meaning he gives to the tag) > I thaught that's optimal for the ontology not to restrict the range to > be (or "become") a skos:Concept but to be the more open as possible. > Not especially with dbpedia, but any knowledge base, since I first > used this for a internal project with its own ontologies. > > Ok. Salutations, FredReceived on Monday, 21 January 2008 14:38:19 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Thursday, 24 March 2022 20:41:08 UTC