Fwd: [uf-discuss] rel-tag for hierarchical categories

[Danny Ayers]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Richard Newman <holygoat at gmail.com>
Date: Dec 3, 2005 10:36 PM
Subject: Re: [uf-discuss] rel-tag for hierarchical categories
To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers at gmail.com>
Cc: Microformats Discuss <microformats-discuss at microformats.org>


Danny, microformatters,
   I trust that <http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/#example>
will suffice. I have included several levels, each of which is
'correct', though I would advise you to shy away from explicitly
using tags:taggedWithTag (I envisage this property as a logical
consequence of the reified versions). The reasoning behind this is
explained in the doc, but essentially can be summarised as "I don't
agree with your taggings, so one cannot simply state that "x is
tagged with y"". There is an act of tagging to be modelled.

   I would note that relating tags is precisely as subjective as
tagging resources, which means we need either to maintain provenance
and attribution (which RDF does not natively do), or to reify this
relation exactly as I reify tags:

   tag:httpsubscription tags:tagRelation
     [ a tags:TagRelation ;
       tags:relatedBy rich:RichardNewman ;
       tags:subCategoryOfTag tag:software ] .

   Please keep me CCed as appropriate, and ask questions as you wish.

-R

On 3 Dec 2005, at 05:23, Danny Ayers wrote:

> On 12/3/05, Kevin Marks <kmarks at technorati.com> wrote:
>
>> No, tagspaces are meant to be flat. If you want hierarchy you need
>> something else.
>
> I'm not sure "flat" is quite the right word.
>
> If you tag say a blog entry with "software" and "httpsubscription",
> the individual relationships are:
>
> <entry> taggedWith "software"
> <entry> taggedWith "httpsubscription"
>
> you could potentially view the combined tagging through either
> hierarchy:
>
> ./software/httpsubscription
> ./httpsubscription/software
>
> which would correspond to relationships in the tagging scheme of:
>
> "httpsubscription" subCategoryOf  "software"
> or
> "software" subCategoryOf "httpsubscription"
>
> If you use URIs for the categories, this can all fit nicely into
> the RDF graph.
>
> An individual tagging scheme, capturing the preferred hierarchy (using
> Turtle syntax):
>
> @prefix skos: <http://www.w3.org/2004/02/skos/core#"> .
>
> <http://example.org/software/httpsubscription> skos:broader
> <http://example.org/software> .
>
> A use of it:
>
> @prefix tags: <http://www.holygoat.co.uk/owl/redwood/0.1/tags/> .
>
> <http://example.com/blog/post/1> tags:tag
> <http://example.org/software/httpsubscription>
>
> Going down this route it's not difficult to extend into further
> information, like who did the tagging.
>
> [Rich - any chance of adding a minimal example or two to the ontology,
> right now it looks like you need to commit to the whole caboodle to be
> able to use it]
>
> Cheers,
> Danny.
>
> --
>
> http://dannyayers.com



--

http://dannyayers.com