Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On Tue, 2009-06-23 at 12:37 +0100, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote: Le 18/06/2009 16:46, Alexandre Passant a écrit : I just reply to an e-mail from Toby on the topic on the commontag ml. Since the archives are not yet public, let-me repost my point about the mappings here. A Tag in common tag is a tag a seen in Newman's ontology. My understanding of Newman's ontology is that the URI tag:cheese (for example) represent every occurence of the string cheese used as a tag. This cannot work with common tag, since cheese can be used: - on resource R1 at date D1 as an AuthorTag - on resource R2 at date D2 as a ReaderTag This practically forces us to define two distinct Tag resources, both with the label cheese, but with different types and taggingDate. Of course, nothing prevents us from using the same resource, but in that case, we would not know anymore which date and which tag type correspond to which resource... So the design of Common Tag implies that Tag resources should not be reused across different tagging actions, which IMHO makes them quite different from Newman's Tags (and close to Tagging, in fact). Yes, exactly, that is the case. pa -- Andraz Tori, CTO Zemanta Ltd, New York, London, Ljubljana www.zemanta.com mail: and...@zemanta.com tel: +386 41 515 767 twitter: andraz, skype: minmax_test
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
2009/6/18 Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com: - The date seems to me a very important piece of information, in particular if you look at tags from the vocabulary management, and/or search engines viewpoint. First, labels change more often than concepts, and second, a search engine would be happy to leverage on date information to show trendy concepts and tags. Which concepts were used as tag today or in the past week/month/year. - And to follow François, I'm very surprised not to find any taggedBy property in the vocabulary. I'm won over by the arguments for offering support for the date, but... That said, why not use simply dc:creator and dc:date to this effect? Right. dc:date would seem a good choice, though I reckon foaf:maker might be a better option than dc:creator as the object is a resource (a foaf:Agent) rather than a literal. While it's likely to mean an extra node in many current scenarios, it offers significantly more prospect for linking data (and less ambiguity). btw, has anyone had chance to revisit the mappings? Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On 18 Jun 2009, at 11:48, Danny Ayers wrote: 2009/6/18 Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com: - The date seems to me a very important piece of information, in particular if you look at tags from the vocabulary management, and/or search engines viewpoint. First, labels change more often than concepts, and second, a search engine would be happy to leverage on date information to show trendy concepts and tags. Which concepts were used as tag today or in the past week/month/year. - And to follow François, I'm very surprised not to find any taggedBy property in the vocabulary. I'm won over by the arguments for offering support for the date, but... That said, why not use simply dc:creator and dc:date to this effect? Right. dc:date would seem a good choice, though I reckon foaf:maker might be a better option than dc:creator as the object is a resource (a foaf:Agent) rather than a literal. While it's likely to mean an extra node in many current scenarios, it offers significantly more prospect for linking data (and less ambiguity). dcterms:creator would also allow for use of a resource. Bibliontology uses dcterms over dc. rob btw, has anyone had chance to revisit the mappings? Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name Rob Styles tel: +44 (0)870 400 5000 fax: +44 (0)870 400 5001 mobile: +44 (0)7971 475 257 msn: m...@yahoo.com irc: irc.freenode.net/mrob,isnick web: http://www.talis.com/ blog: http://www.dynamicorange.com/blog/ blog: http://blogs.talis.com/panlibus/ blog: http://blogs.talis.com/nodalities/ blog: http://blogs.talis.com/n2/ Please consider the environment before printing this email. Find out more about Talis at www.talis.com shared innovationTM Any views or personal opinions expressed within this email may not be those of Talis Information Ltd or its employees. The content of this email message and any files that may be attached are confidential, and for the usage of the intended recipient only. If you are not the intended recipient, then please return this message to the sender and delete it. Any use of this e-mail by an unauthorised recipient is prohibited. Talis Information Ltd is a member of the Talis Group of companies and is registered in England No 3638278 with its registered office at Knights Court, Solihull Parkway, Birmingham Business Park, B37 7YB.
Re: Common Tag, FOAF and Dublin Core Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On 18/6/09 13:31, Bernard Vatant wrote: Rob, Danny (and Dan) ... why not use simply dc:creator and dc:date to this effect? Right. dc:date would seem a good choice, though I reckon foaf:maker might be a better option than dc:creator as the object is a resource (a foaf:Agent) rather than a literal. While it's likely to mean an extra node in many current scenarios, it offers significantly more prospect for linking data (and less ambiguity). dcterms:creator would also allow for use of a resource. Bibliontology uses dcterms over dc. Well I actually meant dcterms:creator when I wrote dc:creator, sorry. So you can link your personal tags to your foaf profile, for example. And it's consistent even for tag:AutoTag, since the range of dcterms:creator is dcterms:Agent, including person, organisation and software agent as well. Unless I miss some sublte distinguo dcterms:Agent is equivalent to foaf:Agent, and dcterms:creator equivalent to foaf:maker. BTW, with due respect to danbri, I wish FOAF would be revised to align whenever possible on dcterms vocabulary, now that it has clean declarations of classes, domains and ranges ... http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms is worth (re)visiting :-) Completely agree. I'm very happy with the direction of DC terms. The foaf:maker property was essential for a while, until DC was cleaned up. I'll mark it as a sub-property of dcterms:creator. I hope we'll get reciprocal claims into the Dublin Core RDF files some day too... Copying Tom Baker here. Tom - what would the best process be for adding in mapping claims to the DC Terms RDF? Maybe we could draft some RDF, put it onto dublincore.org elsewhere, and for now add a seeAlso from the namespace RDF? cheers, Dan
Re: Common Tag, FOAF and Dublin Core Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On 18/6/09 15:07, Thomas Baker wrote: On Thu, Jun 18, 2009 at 01:49:56PM +0200, Dan Brickley wrote: Well I actually meant dcterms:creator when I wrote dc:creator, sorry. So you can link your personal tags to your foaf profile, for example. And it's consistent even for tag:AutoTag, since the range of dcterms:creator is dcterms:Agent, including person, organisation and software agent as well. Unless I miss some sublte distinguo dcterms:Agent is equivalent to foaf:Agent, and dcterms:creator equivalent to foaf:maker. BTW, with due respect to danbri, I wish FOAF would be revised to align whenever possible on dcterms vocabulary, now that it has clean declarations of classes, domains and ranges ... http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms is worth (re)visiting :-) Completely agree. I'm very happy with the direction of DC terms. The foaf:maker property was essential for a while, until DC was cleaned up. I'll mark it as a sub-property of dcterms:creator. I hope we'll get reciprocal claims into the Dublin Core RDF files some day too... Copying Tom Baker here. Tom - what would the best process be for adding in mapping claims to the DC Terms RDF? Maybe we could draft some RDF, put it onto dublincore.org elsewhere, and for now add a seeAlso from the namespace RDF? Hi Dan, If you could write up a short proposal -- how the properties are defined, with a proposed mapping claim -- we could discuss this in the DCMI Usage Board and take a decision. We associate changes in the namespace RDF (and related namespace documentation) with formal decisions so would need to follow a process. Sounds like a plan! Thanks. I'll take it to DC lists and report back here as things progress. cheers, Dan
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
Hi all, Le 18 juin 09 à 03:48, Danny Ayers a écrit : 2009/6/18 Bernard Vatant bernard.vat...@mondeca.com: - The date seems to me a very important piece of information, in particular if you look at tags from the vocabulary management, and/or search engines viewpoint. First, labels change more often than concepts, and second, a search engine would be happy to leverage on date information to show trendy concepts and tags. Which concepts were used as tag today or in the past week/month/year. - And to follow François, I'm very surprised not to find any taggedBy property in the vocabulary. I'm won over by the arguments for offering support for the date, but... That said, why not use simply dc:creator and dc:date to this effect? Right. dc:date would seem a good choice, though I reckon foaf:maker might be a better option than dc:creator as the object is a resource (a foaf:Agent) rather than a literal. While it's likely to mean an extra node in many current scenarios, it offers significantly more prospect for linking data (and less ambiguity). I would also suggest foaf:maker. btw, has anyone had chance to revisit the mappings? I just reply to an e-mail from Toby on the topic on the commontag ml. Since the archives are not yet public, let-me repost my point about the mappings here. A Tag in common tag is a tag a seen in Newman's ontology. If you look at [2], a ctag:Tag is used to annotate a resource with a ctag:tagged property, as done in Newman's ontology with tag:Tag and tag:taggedWithTag The thing that may be disturbing (but not wrong imho, that's just another way of modeling) is indeed the tagging date, which is related to the tag in CommonTag, but was related to the tagging action (tripartite model) in Newman's model. Hence, the current mappings are right if you follow that convention, I will do some schemas from the mappings file to explicit that. Best, Alex. [2] http://commontag.org/Image:Commontagmodel.jpg Cheers, Danny. -- http://danny.ayers.name -- Alexandre Passant Digital Enterprise Research Institute National University of Ireland, Galway :me owl:sameAs http://apassant.net/alex .
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
Hi Francsois others, I really like the turn this debate has taken! Practical considerations about what is useful and what not! Going with Common Tag standard through many iterations, I think I can explain some choices taken. First, we were aware of other existing possibilities for semantic tagging. The idea was to approach this from the other side - from what companies are already doing with semantic tags and what they wanted to do next. So we were asking ourselves: can this be made interoperable?. We tried to create a specification that would be minimal, yet useful for practical aims of already existing applications and services. The parties involved didn't see the immediate need to exactly specify the the one who placed the tag, but we did feel the need for the ability to specify how tag was created (inferred by machine, fully by human, etc...) So we included that. The date of tagging came into the game mostly as an example of how the standard can be extended if the practical need arises. I don't think any of the people involved actually publish tagging date along the tags right now. And I agree with Peter Mika, that this can be quite important piece of information [I can imagine one reason why taggingDate can be technically very important - because vocabulary entity (in DBpedia for example, I think less so in Freebase) can change meaning through time. While this was definitely not the reason to add tagging date as part of the specification, it can be justified that way] As Jamie said, this is the basic skeleton that was needed, now we'll see how it is used and adjust accordingly through time. bye andraz On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 19:13 +0200, François Dongier wrote: 2009/6/12 Peter Mika pm...@yahoo-inc.comy t Maybe others can comment as well, but I do think it's [taggingDate] an important piece of information, e.g. to determine recently popular tags. In my very humble opinion, **who** tagged a resource with ctag T at time t could also be a very useful information to store. I'm expecting that in the near future we will have rich user profiles, based on sets of semantic tags (semantic tagclouds, if you prefer). Communities of interest, not just individual people, could also be defined in terms of such semantic cIouds. I think lots of interesting computations could be done over that kind of information: personalised reading recommendations obviously, but also relativisation of the popularity of a tagset (and I agree the timestamp is useful for that) to a particular community of users. For this sort of thing, don't we need a taggedBy property? -- Andraz Tori, CTO Zemanta Ltd, New York, London, Ljubljana www.zemanta.com mail: and...@zemanta.com tel: +386 41 515 767 twitter: andraz, skype: minmax_test
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
Hello! On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 11:38 AM, Danny Ayersdanny.ay...@gmail.com wrote: Really good to see this work! May be nothing, but...it appears the tagging date is associated with the tag. I assume most systems would want to infer that tags with the same meaning were equivalent (even though this isn't specified using IFPs or whatever). I'm a little concerned about what you'll get when merging different doc's data with this assumption of equivalence - doc1 ctag:tagged [ a ctag:Tag ctag:taggingDate 2009-06-12 ctag:means http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en/collaborative_tagging ] . doc2 ctag:tagged [ a ctag:Tag ctag:taggingDate 2009-06-13 ctag:means http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en/collaborative_tagging ] . - [ a ctag:Tag ctag:taggingDate 2009-06-12 ctag:taggingDate 2009-06-13 ctag:means http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en/collaborative_tagging ] - which doesn't look very useful. Yes, this indeed will give quite weird results. The tag ontology at [1] tackles this issue nicely, by considering a tagging event and the tag itself as two different entities. Cheers, y [1] http://www.holygoat.co.uk/projects/tags/
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 12:15 +0200, Peter Mika wrote: Indeed, you cannot do this merging: a ctag:Tag refers to the tagging event. So the concepts they refer to (ctag:means) might be the same, the Tags are not. Then http://commontag.org/mapping is wrong. It states: ctag:Tag rdfs:subClassOf tag:Tag . ctag:tagged rdfs:subClassOf tag:taggedWithTag . Whereas if ctag:Tag represents the tagging event, it should state: ctag:Tag rdfs:subClassOf tag:Tagging . ctag:tagged rdfs:subClassOf tag:tag . That also has implications for ctag's mappings to MOAT, SCOT, SKOS and SIOC though. And it invalidates the ctag:means mapping to MOAT. In essence it seems ctag:Tag is a sort of hybrid between tag:Tagging and tag:Tag. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it does mean that your mappings to Richard Newman's tag ontology are probably never going to work especially well. And this includes MOAT and SCOT which are built on Richard's ontology. (And SIOC and SKOS use ideas which are fairly compatible with Richard's ontology too - indeed, tag:Tag is a subclass of skos:Concept.) -- Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 11:47 +0100, Toby Inkster wrote: In essence it seems ctag:Tag is a sort of hybrid between tag:Tagging and tag:Tag. There's nothing wrong with that per se, but it does mean that your mappings to Richard Newman's tag ontology are probably never going to work especially well. Lest I be accused of nonconstructive criticism, a route to improving the vocab would be to properly align CommonTag with existing ontologies by dropping ctag:taggedDate altogether. Of all the terms defined by CommonTag, ctag:taggedDate is probably the one with least value to most publishers, so this change would not only help align CommonTag with other ontologies, but also serve to simplify and streamline the spec. The description of tagging *events* could then be considered an advanced use case, not directly supported by CommonTag. But given that CommonTag would then be compatible with Richard Newman's ontology, and MOAT, SCOT, etc, advanced users could go outside CommonTag to add this extra meaning to their tags. -- Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
Peter, maybe you could explain why you guys found it useful to date tagging events in the first place. I suppose the point of it might be that it could provide some context? If so, the date is only one aspect of the context and probably not the richest one. On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/12 Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk: Lest I be accused of nonconstructive criticism, a route to improving the vocab would be to properly align CommonTag with existing ontologies by dropping ctag:taggedDate altogether. Of all the terms defined by CommonTag, ctag:taggedDate is probably the one with least value to most publishers, so this change would not only help align CommonTag with other ontologies, but also serve to simplify and streamline the spec. The description of tagging *events* could then be considered an advanced use case, not directly supported by CommonTag. But given that CommonTag would then be compatible with Richard Newman's ontology, and MOAT, SCOT, etc, advanced users could go outside CommonTag to add this extra meaning to their tags. Makes sense to me. While an RDFS/OWL inference based mapping between Richard's ontology and Common Tag may not be be possible right now, SPARQL CONSTRUCT could be an alternative. Note also Richard's ontology allows: uri tags:taggedWithTag taguri . SPARQL (SELECT or CONSTRUCT) across those alongside Common Tag taggings would be easy using OPTIONALs Just as a little in-practice datapoint, not long ago I set up a little proof-of-concept service [1] for pulling out del.icio.us taggings into Richard's Tag Ontology. del.icio.us's RSS 1.0 feed gets the date modelling wrong, funnily enough, so I was using XSLT on their API (code at [2]). Although some of the string manipulation bits were painful, the bit I decided to leave out because it was hard work was reconciling the lists of values that could be the subject of associatedTag. Overall I was left with the impression that Richard's ont could use simplifying, if it was possible to do this without breaking the potential for maximally capturing data about the tagging event. I'm optimistic the Common Tag mini-consortium can sort this one out :) Cheers, Danny. [1] http://hyperdata.org/taglia/ [2] http://n2.talis.com/svn/playground/danja/taglia/ -- http://danny.ayers.name
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
Maybe others can comment as well, but I do think it's an important piece of information, e.g. to determine recently popular tags. Cheers, Peter François Dongier wrote: Peter, maybe you could explain why you guys found it useful to date tagging events in the first place. I suppose the point of it might be that it could provide some context? If so, the date is only one aspect of the context and probably not the richest one. On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 1:50 PM, Danny Ayers danny.ay...@gmail.com mailto:danny.ay...@gmail.com wrote: 2009/6/12 Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk mailto:t...@g5n.co.uk: Lest I be accused of nonconstructive criticism, a route to improving the vocab would be to properly align CommonTag with existing ontologies by dropping ctag:taggedDate altogether. Of all the terms defined by CommonTag, ctag:taggedDate is probably the one with least value to most publishers, so this change would not only help align CommonTag with other ontologies, but also serve to simplify and streamline the spec. The description of tagging *events* could then be considered an advanced use case, not directly supported by CommonTag. But given that CommonTag would then be compatible with Richard Newman's ontology, and MOAT, SCOT, etc, advanced users could go outside CommonTag to add this extra meaning to their tags. Makes sense to me. While an RDFS/OWL inference based mapping between Richard's ontology and Common Tag may not be be possible right now, SPARQL CONSTRUCT could be an alternative. Note also Richard's ontology allows: uri tags:taggedWithTag taguri . SPARQL (SELECT or CONSTRUCT) across those alongside Common Tag taggings would be easy using OPTIONALs Just as a little in-practice datapoint, not long ago I set up a little proof-of-concept service [1] for pulling out del.icio.us http://del.icio.us taggings into Richard's Tag Ontology. del.icio.us http://del.icio.us's RSS 1.0 feed gets the date modelling wrong, funnily enough, so I was using XSLT on their API (code at [2]). Although some of the string manipulation bits were painful, the bit I decided to leave out because it was hard work was reconciling the lists of values that could be the subject of associatedTag. Overall I was left with the impression that Richard's ont could use simplifying, if it was possible to do this without breaking the potential for maximally capturing data about the tagging event. I'm optimistic the Common Tag mini-consortium can sort this one out :) Cheers, Danny. [1] http://hyperdata.org/taglia/ [2] http://n2.talis.com/svn/playground/danja/taglia/ -- http://danny.ayers.name
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 10:31 -0400, Valeska Oleary wrote: It’s hard to comment without understanding the use cases and scenarios, but high level speaking I’m inclined to think date is a valuable piece of information to most publishers. I imagine the date of publication of an article, plus dates of modification and other document lifecycle dates are valuable to most publishers. The date an article has had a particular tag added though is probably of secondary importance. -- Toby Inkster t...@g5n.co.uk
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
2009/6/12 Peter Mika pm...@yahoo-inc.com Maybe others can comment as well, but I do think it's [taggingDate] an important piece of information, e.g. to determine recently popular tags. In my very humble opinion, **who** tagged a resource with ctag T at time t could also be a very useful information to store. I'm expecting that in the near future we will have rich user profiles, based on sets of semantic tags (semantic tagclouds, if you prefer). Communities of interest, not just individual people, could also be defined in terms of such semantic cIouds. I think lots of interesting computations could be done over that kind of information: personalised reading recommendations obviously, but also relativisation of the popularity of a tagset (and I agree the timestamp is useful for that) to a particular community of users. For this sort of thing, don't we need a taggedBy property?
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
Francois - Agree - I think knowing who created a tag is an important annotation. The thought was that you could mix in another vocabulary's property like foaf:maker for things like that. Common Tag is simply a small skeleton for representing the basic Tag structure. The hope was people would dress this up with other useful vocabularies for the range of tasks Common Tags could be applied to. Copied from the Common Tag Quick Start Guide [1]: body xmlns:ctag=http://commontag.org/ns#; about=http://www.bbc.co.uk/musicevents/u2/; rel=ctag:tagged span typeof=ctag:ReaderTag span rel=ctag:means resource=http://rdf.freebase.com/ns/en.u2 span rel=foaf:maker resource=http://faviki.com/person/jamietaylor#me / /span /body J [1] http://commontag.org/QuickStartGuide Jamie Taylor, Ph.D. Minister of Information Metaweb Technologies, Inc. Author Programming the Semantic Web www.freebase.com/view/en/jamie_taylor On Jun 12, 2009, at 10:13 AM, François Dongier wrote: 2009/6/12 Peter Mika pm...@yahoo-inc.com Maybe others can comment as well, but I do think it's [taggingDate] an important piece of information, e.g. to determine recently popular tags. In my very humble opinion, **who** tagged a resource with ctag T at time t could also be a very useful information to store. I'm expecting that in the near future we will have rich user profiles, based on sets of semantic tags (semantic tagclouds, if you prefer). Communities of interest, not just individual people, could also be defined in terms of such semantic cIouds. I think lots of interesting computations could be done over that kind of information: personalised reading recommendations obviously, but also relativisation of the popularity of a tagset (and I agree the timestamp is useful for that) to a particular community of users. For this sort of thing, don't we need a taggedBy property?
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On Fri, Jun 12, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Toby Inkstert...@g5n.co.uk wrote: On Fri, 2009-06-12 at 01:33 +0200, Andraz Tori wrote: also to note is that there exist proper mappings to other efforts at tagging ontologies: http://commontag.org/mappings The question is though, will Search Monkey, Sindice, et al make use of these mappings, and offer support for other tagging vocabs? Sindice yes, since the mappings are in RDFS basically and we perform reasoning and materialization before indexing. So you look for a http://www.holygoat.co.uk/owl/redwood/0.1/tags/Tag for example you _would_ find a common tag. (since its described as a subClassOf) .. this as long as the common tag RDF document or the ontology itself at some point has a reference or imports the mapping document of course (is this the case?) Giovanni
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
Andraz Tori wrote: Hi guys, today, a small consortium of web companies and one institute (AdaptiveBlue, DERI (NUI Galway), Faviki, Freebase, Yahoo!, Zemanta, and Zigtag) released a format specifying expression of semantic tags so our tools will understand/publish them. http://commontag.org It is RDFa based and it does not mandate specific vocabulary of meanings for tags. DBpedia and Freebase are currently used by Zigtag, Faviki and Zemanta. Soon Glue browsing extension will support it too - so there's going to be improved browsing experience as a bonus for semantically tagging the content. We tried to build on previous experience of MOAT and others and simplify even further, so the barrier to entry will be low as possible (but still RDFa is not grokked by a lot of publishing platforms). I am interested on your thoughts in this! And if anyone wants to use this somewhere please report it, so we'll put it under Applications page at http://commontag.org [i'll be traveling in next few days and won't be able to answer emails promptly, but there are guys from other organizations this list that will] Can you point me to a live example of a Tag with a de-referencable HTTP URI? I need that to comment :-) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen President CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 16:39 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Can you point me to a live example of a Tag with a de-referencable HTTP URI? I need that to comment :-) http://blog.commontag.org Extraction: http://www.w3.org/2007/08/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http://blog.commontag.orgformat=pretty-xmlwarnings=falseparser=laxspace-preserve=truesubmit=Go! or: http://faviki.com/topic/Semantic_web Extraction: http://www.w3.org/2007/08/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http%3A%2F% 2Ffaviki.com%2Ftopic% 2FSemantic_webformat=pretty-xmlwarnings=falseparser=laxspace-preserve=truesubmit=Go!) or http://zigtag.com/tag/Web%20Design/1570830 Extraction: http://www.w3.org/2007/08/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http://zigtag.com/tag/Web% 20Design/1570830format=pretty-xmlwarnings=falseparser=laxspace-preserve=truesubmit=Go! [hmm something is wrong here, probably zigtag has some glitch currently] -- Andraz Tori, CTO Zemanta Ltd, New York, London, Ljubljana www.zemanta.com mail: and...@zemanta.com tel: +386 41 515 767 twitter: andraz, skype: minmax_test
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
Congratulations! This looks really good On Thursday, June 11, 2009, Andraz Tori and...@zemanta.com wrote: Hi guys, today, a small consortium of web companies and one institute (AdaptiveBlue, DERI (NUI Galway), Faviki, Freebase, Yahoo!, Zemanta, and Zigtag) released a format specifying expression of semantic tags so our tools will understand/publish them. http://commontag.org It is RDFa based and it does not mandate specific vocabulary of meanings for tags. DBpedia and Freebase are currently used by Zigtag, Faviki and Zemanta. Soon Glue browsing extension will support it too - so there's going to be improved browsing experience as a bonus for semantically tagging the content. We tried to build on previous experience of MOAT and others and simplify even further, so the barrier to entry will be low as possible (but still RDFa is not grokked by a lot of publishing platforms). I am interested on your thoughts in this! And if anyone wants to use this somewhere please report it, so we'll put it under Applications page at http://commontag.org [i'll be traveling in next few days and won't be able to answer emails promptly, but there are guys from other organizations this list that will] -- Andraz Tori, CTO Zemanta Ltd, New York, London, Ljubljana www.zemanta.com mail: and...@zemanta.com tel: +386 41 515 767 twitter: andraz, skype: minmax_test
Re: Common Tag - semantic tagging convention
On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 16:39 -0400, Kingsley Idehen wrote: Can you point me to a live example of a Tag with a de-referencable HTTP URI? I need that to comment :-) Ok, now ZigTag now works correctly also [they fixed it fast!] http://zigtag.com/tag/Web%20Design/1570830 Extraction: http://www.w3.org/2007/08/pyRdfa/extract?uri=http://zigtag.com/tag/Web% 20Design/1570830format=pretty-xmlwarnings=falseparser=laxspace-preserve=truesubmit=Go! also to note is that there exist proper mappings to other efforts at tagging ontologies: http://commontag.org/mappings If anyone has any ideas of what could be missing, let us know! Also important: the initial nucleus of organizations welcomes any new participants that would support Common Tag meaningfully inside their services ... there's a lot of space on that diagram that needs to be filled up... :) -- Andraz Tori, CTO Zemanta Ltd, New York, London, Ljubljana www.zemanta.com mail: and...@zemanta.com tel: +386 41 515 767 twitter: andraz, skype: minmax_test
