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.
______________________________________________________ V A L E S K A O ' L E A R Y Director of User Experience T: 508.766.5441 | C: 508.561.1553 | F: 508.766.5315 Twitter: valeskaUX ONLINE PUBLISHING GROUP IDG ENTERPRISE CXO Media/NWW 492 Old Connecticut Path, 4th Floor | Framingham, MA 01701 ______________________________________________________ CIO.com | NetworkWorld.com | CSOonline,.com | TheStandard.com | DEMO.com | ComputerWorld.com | InfoWorld.com | ITWorld.com | ITWhitepapers.com ______________________________________________________ It's very difficult for us to talk about people without personalizing them -- so why do computers dehumanize us? We need to stop thinking of things as technical problems and start thinking about them as people problems. On 6/12/09 10:21 AM, "Peter Mika" <[email protected]> wrote: 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 <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > 2009/6/12 Toby Inkster <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]><mailto:[email protected]>>: > > > 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><http://del.icio.us> taggings into > Richard's Tag Ontology. del.icio.us > <http://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 > >
