On 17.11.2011 20:03, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
Hi Steffen,
On 17 Nov 2011, at 14:34, Steffen Lohmann wrote:
MUTO should thus not be considered as yet another tagging ontology but as a
unification of existing approaches.
I'm curious why you decided not to include mappings (equivalentClass,
subProperty etc) to the existing approaches.
Good point, Richard. I thought about it but finally decided to separate
these alignments from the core ontology - therefore the "MUTO Mappings
Module" (http://muto.socialtagging.org/core/v1.html#Modules).
SIOC and SKOS can be nicely reused but aligning MUTO with the nine
reviewed tagging ontologies is challenging and would result in a number
of inconsistencies. This is mainly due to a different conceptual
understanding of tagging and folksonomies in the various ontologies. To
give some examples:
- Are tags with same labels merged in the ontology (i.e. are they one
instance)?
- Is the number of tags per tagging limited to one or not?
- In case of semantic tagging: Are single tags or complete taggings
disambiguated?
- How are the creators of taggings linked?
- Are tags from private taggings visible to other users or not?
Apart from that, I would have risk that MUTO is no longer OWL Lite/DL
which I consider important for a tagging ontology (reasoning of
folksonomies).
The current version of the MUTO Mappings Module provides alignments to
Newman's popular TAGS ontology (mainly for compatibility reasons). Have
a look at it and you'll get an idea of the difficulties in correctly
aligning MUTO with existing tagging ontologies.
Best,
Steffen
--
Steffen Lohmann - DEI Lab
Computer Science Department, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid
Avda de la Universidad 30, 28911 Leganés, Madrid (Spain), Office: 22A20
Phone: +34 916 24-9419, http://www.dei.inf.uc3m.es/slohmann/
