Using tags for POWDER content labels

Hi all!

Sorry for the cross-posting, but this is a topic that I think is in the
intersection between POWDER, SIOC and SKOS, thus I would like to hear
opinions from several groups. Reply-To is tentatively set to
public-powderwg@w3.org, but post as you see appropriate (I guess
anti-spam measures could make this nasty...)

I intend to support POWDER content labels on my.opera.com, since we live
with people posting nudes and stuff. Censorship is a touchy issue.
However, rigid taxonomies have never been popular among users, tags are
however, so I intend that people tag their stuff, and then map that tag
to a POWDER description. The basic infrastructure for doing this is
allready in place:
http://my.opera.com/semweb/blog/2007/03/08/marrying-folksonomies-and-taxonomies

However, the current interface is now rather complex:
http://my.opera.com/semweb/blog/2007/03/23/complexities-of-tag-to-vocabulary-mappin
to the extent where I think it would confuse many users and thus be of
little value.

So, this is how I imagine it done: A user has tags, modelled with SKOS
concepts. Thus every tag gets a URI,
http://my.opera.com/username/tag/nude
for example. Then, this tag needs to be bound to a resource on one hand
and a POWDER description on the other.

sioc:topic comes to mind, thus
sioc:topic
.

Since ICRA/FOSI will have created the vocabulary about nudity for us,
all I want to do is to link to the description, that I hope Phil one
day will create (this is just an example!):

ex:means
.

The first obvious thing is that I don't know what predicate that should
be used to link the SKOS concept to the description. However, that
could be another issue for the open SKOS issue in the core guide as
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-swbp-skos-core-guide-20051102/#secmodellingrdf
If this approach to tag-to-URI mapping is feasible, I would be happy if
something like that went into SKOS. The implementation I currently have
on my.opera.com is allready a use case for this.

The next problem is that I'm not linking a resource directly to a
description, thus making SPARQL queries and the general model more
complex. The alternative, as I see it, is to make the UI more complex
on the tagging services, but I don't think that's a good approach.

Thus, I think the minimum graph to link a resource to a POWDER
description is
sioc:topic
.
ex:means
.

and an user agent would have to understand that. I was myself hoping to
get away with a single triple when I started to work on this, but as
noted in my blog, it is a matter of who gets to deal with the
complexity. So, is this the right balance?

Note that this approach does not at all use the content grouping that
the POWDER group discusses at length, it just links resource to
description. Of course, for large-scale workflows, content grouping is
important, but I think "the long tail" may be more comfortable with
this approach. It would be very interesting if we could get del.icio.us
involved, for example.

Cheers,

Kjetil
--
Kjetil Kjernsmo
Semantic Web Specialist
Opera Software ASA

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "SIOC-Dev" group.
To post to this group, send email to sioc-dev@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to sioc-dev-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sioc-dev?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---