Distinguishing Semantic Tags from Information Resources

[azaroth42]

The current model assigns the oa:SemanticTag class to existing Non-Information resources when they are used as a Tag in an Annotation. Given the open world, this asserts that the NIR is always a SemanticTag, not only in the context of the annotation.

Justification

This is a problem for two reasons:

• We are polluting the global knowledge about a resource for a local usage scenario.
• The same NIR could be used even within the annotation space as both a SemanticTag and the real world object that the URI identifies. For example one might imagine tagging the URI for the (physical) Eiffel Tower with the URI for the (physical) Paris, or Tower, or ...

Proposal

Proposed solution is to always use the same pattern as for using documents as tags in the draft, but with a different predicate along the lines of "hasConcept". Perhaps something from SKOS?

{
 "@type": "oa:Annotation",
 "oa:hasBody" : { 
    "@type": "oa:SemanticTag",
    "xxx:hasConcept": "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tower"    
  },
  "oa:hasTarget" : "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Eiffel_Tower"
}

Background

This was not seen as crucial to solve in the CG as the likelihood of the pollution actually being relevant is quite low. There's very little danger in asserting that every non information resource is a SemanticTag, because SemanticTag has minimal implications.

The rationale for distinguishing the body resource as a Tag, and having oa:tagging as a motivation comes from multiple bodies on a single annotation. For example, commenting about a particular span of text and tagging it as needing to be updated at the same time.

Links

• Tracker

[iherman]

Looks o.k. to me.

Ivan

On 08 Oct 2014, at 24:08 , Rob Sanderson notifications@github.com wrote:

The current model assigns the oa:SemanticTag class to existing Non-Information resources when they are used as a Tag in an Annotation. Given the open world, this asserts that the NIR is always a SemanticTag, not only in the context of the annotation.

Justification

This is a problem for two reasons:

• We are polluting the global knowledge about a resource for a local usage scenario.
• The same NIR could be used even within the annotation space as both a SemanticTag and the real world object that the URI identifies. For example one might imagine tagging the URI for the (physical) Eiffel Tower with the URI for the (physical) Paris, or Tower, or ...
Proposal

Proposed solution is to always use the same pattern as for using documents as tags in the draft, but with a different predicate along the lines of "hasConcept". Perhaps something from SKOS?

{

"@type": "oa:Annotation",

"oa:hasBody" : {

"@type": "oa:SemanticTag",

"xxx:hasConcept": "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Tower"

},

"oa:hasTarget" : "http://dbpedia.org/resource/Eiffel_Tower"
}
Background

This was not seen as crucial to solve in the CG as the likelihood of the pollution actually being relevant is quite low. There's very little danger in asserting that every non information resource is a SemanticTag, because SemanticTag has minimal implications.

Links

• Tracker
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.

---

Ivan Herman, W3C
Digital Publishing Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
GPG: 0x343F1A3D
WebID: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf#me

[azaroth42]

Resolved in FPWD