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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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:
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
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:
20 matches
Mail list logo
