On Wed, Mar 28, 2007 at 06:00:13PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:

Cheers - and see you all in a couple of weeks!

"see" virtually that is - I'm offline until then.

Dominic.

On 28 Mar 2007, at 23:17, Kake L Pugh wrote:

On Wed 28 Mar 2007, Bob Walker bob@randomness.org.uk wrote:

...

We have discussed before that we prefer categories and locales over "tags" becasue they are less freeform. However they are our "tags" and as such we should probably mark them up like that for microformat goodness. It would seem the way to do this is to add rel="tag" in the <a>.

Bob pointed me at http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-tag

for further info, and it looks like it isn't this simple. The only way they allow you to state what the tag actually _is_ (e.g. "pub", "bermondsey") is to have it as the final "component" of the URL that you link to. Having it as a query parameter is no use. Having it as an additional attribute of the <a> element is no use. Having it as some non-final component of the URL in order to be compatible with some other scheme that also wants to have its data as the final component of the URL is no use.

So basically - we can't do this as it stands, and even if we did decide to rewrite all our URLs to fit in with it, we'd be locking ourselves into a particular URL scheme which may well be incompatible with the next cool thing to come along.

It feels rather like something that hasn't been properly thought out yet, particularly given the valid and recent criticisms raised at http://microformats.org/wiki/rel-tag-feedback

Also, one might prefer RDFa or GRDDL to achieve similar goals.

I'm not expert enough to recommend one over the other, however GRDDL does seem to be dynamic enough that it might be a low-hanging fruit to grab for Open Guides.

Of course Open Guides already outputs actual RDF/XML, so some might argue this whole exercise is somewhat redundant.

Daniel

On Thu 29 Mar 2007, Tom Heath tom.heath@gmail.com wrote:

Using the whole-hog approach of expressing "who tagged what with what and when" might be a bit tricky, because if you edit an entry that I placed in the Wolverton locale, who did the tagging? me? both of us? and when? I'm not sure if this degree of provenance data is held in the db or not.

You can get it out of the database, e.g.:

node name | version | category | username -----------------------------+---------+----------------------+-------------- Assa, WC2H 8LH | 2 | Korean Food | bob Assa, WC2H 8LH | 3 | Korean Food | Kake Assa, WC2H 8LH | 1 | Restaurants | Claudia Assa, WC2H 8LH | 2 | Restaurants | bob Assa, WC2H 8LH | 3 | Restaurants | Kake

This means that Claudia added Assa and tagged it as a restaurant, then Bob added the Korean Food tag. It also means that Bob agrees (or, at least, doesn't disagree) with Claudia that it's a restaurant, and that Kake agrees with both Bob and Claudia that it's a restaurant serving Korean Food.

(You can get the dates of the edits too, I just didn't bother in this extract.)

(I talked with zool about this many years ago - in a way, an edit that doesn't remove a category or locale is a "vote" for that category/locale being correct. We were wondering if we could use this in some way to "define" the extent of a locale - as in, if 20 people agree that a point is in Bermondsey, then it probably is. I don't think we have enough contributors for this to work, but theoretically it's a nice idea.)

Here's the SQL, linewrapped for readability; the "substring" stuff was just to make the output fit in 80 characters.

london=> select substring(node.name from 1 for 27) as "node name", content.version, substring(mc.metadata_value from 1 for 20) as "category", mn.metadata_value as "username" from content inner join node on (content.node_id=node.id) inner join metadata as mn on (content.node_id=mn.node_id and content.version=mn.version and mn.metadata_type='username') inner join metadata as mc on (content.node_id=mc.node_id and content.version=mc.version and mc.metadata_type='category' ) order by node.name, mc.metadata_value, content.version;

Kake

Cool, that's great news that the data is there. From the point of view of modelling this process, I guess I'd argue that each new tag added by a person represents "that person tagging the thing with a certain tag", but that "an edit by person B that leaves in place a tag X added by person A", does not represent an instance of "person B tagging the thing with tag X". This level of pickiness may be a bit anally retentive however.

On the upside, this process (as you point out with the Bermondsey example) does provide a very neat way of establishing the possible trustworthiness of tagging statements. Something along the lines of "if more than X people have edited a node and left in place the category/tag Y, then we're confident to a degree Z that this is the case" may be possible. Obviously still open to spamming of confidence levels, but better than nothing :)

Tom.

On 29/03/07, Kake L Pugh kake@earth.li wrote:

On Thu 29 Mar 2007, Tom Heath tom.heath@gmail.com wrote:

...

Using the whole-hog approach of expressing "who tagged what with what and when" might be a bit tricky, because if you edit an entry that I placed in the Wolverton locale, who did the tagging? me? both of us? and when? I'm not sure if this degree of provenance data is held in the db or not.

You can get it out of the database, e.g.:

      node name          | version |       category       |   username

-----------------------------+---------+----------------------+-------------- Assa, WC2H 8LH | 2 | Korean Food | bob Assa, WC2H 8LH | 3 | Korean Food | Kake Assa, WC2H 8LH | 1 | Restaurants | Claudia Assa, WC2H 8LH | 2 | Restaurants | bob Assa, WC2H 8LH | 3 | Restaurants | Kake

This means that Claudia added Assa and tagged it as a restaurant, then Bob added the Korean Food tag. It also means that Bob agrees (or, at least, doesn't disagree) with Claudia that it's a restaurant, and that Kake agrees with both Bob and Claudia that it's a restaurant serving Korean Food.

(You can get the dates of the edits too, I just didn't bother in this extract.)

(I talked with zool about this many years ago - in a way, an edit that doesn't remove a category or locale is a "vote" for that category/locale being correct. We were wondering if we could use this in some way to "define" the extent of a locale - as in, if 20 people agree that a point is in Bermondsey, then it probably is. I don't think we have enough contributors for this to work, but theoretically it's a nice idea.)

Here's the SQL, linewrapped for readability; the "substring" stuff was just to make the output fit in 80 characters.

london=> select substring(node.name from 1 for 27) as "node name", content.version, substring(mc.metadata_value from 1 for 20) as "category", mn.metadata_value as "username" from content inner join node on (content.node_id=node.id) inner join metadata as mn on (content.node_id=mn.node_id and content.version=mn.version and mn.metadata_type='username') inner join metadata as mc on (content.node_id=mc.node_id and content.version=mc.version and mc.metadata_type='category' ) order by node.name, mc.metadata_value, content.version;

Kake

-- OpenGuides-Dev mailing list - OpenGuides-Dev@lists.openguides.org http://lists.openguides.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openguides-dev

On Thu 29 Mar 2007, Tom Heath tom.heath@gmail.com wrote:

ex:obj tags:tag [ tags:associatedTag tag:great , tag:interesting ] .

The above line is an example of my Dummy-like status in this respect - I have no idea what language that is or how it should be used. Help?

Kake

On Fri, Mar 30, 2007 at 12:45:42PM +0100, Kake L Pugh wrote:

On Thu 29 Mar 2007, Tom Heath tom.heath@gmail.com wrote:

...

...

ex:obj tags:tag [ tags:associatedTag tag:great , tag:interesting ] .

On Thu 29 Mar 2007, Kake L Pugh kake@earth.li wrote:

...

The above line is an example of my Dummy-like status in this respect - I have no idea what language that is or how it should be used. Help?

crschmidt explained on IRC that this is "turtle", a shorthand for RDF.

So my next question is - is there anywhere that's using this stuff? As a consumer, I mean. Tom's link had some examples of people _producing_ it, but is there anywhere I can go and look to see it in action?

After talking to Kake on IRC, I realized here she didn't mean 'turtle', but instead the tags ontology described in the previously mentioned links.

Regards,

On Fri 30 Mar 2007, Tom Heath tom.heath@gmail.com wrote:

So, the question is, "is anyone actually consuming tag data described using this ontology, and if so where can I see it in action?" Have I got that right?

Quick answer (longer one later): yes, that's it! But not in the sense of "nobody wants it so it's not worth it", more in the sense of "it'd be great/useful/motivating to have somewhere we could check out if we'd done it properly and usefully". Like with the Disco thing, which was very useful for seeing what was missing in our RDF. (Or, as an analogy, writing CSS is much more fun these days since browsers actually support it, and so I can see my mistakes/a return on my hard work instantly.)

Kake

On 30/03/07, Kake L Pugh kake@earth.li wrote:

On Fri 30 Mar 2007, Tom Heath tom.heath@gmail.com wrote:

...

So, the question is, "is anyone actually consuming tag data described using this ontology, and if so where can I see it in action?" Have I got that right?

The simple answer is no, not really.

Could OpenGuides become a consumer?

Yeah, absolutely! I'm not sure if there a list anywhere of sites/services that are exposing data with this ontology, but I can speak for Revyu and say that yes, OpenGuides would be very welcome to become a consumer. Presenting Revyu reviews alongside OpenGuides entries would be a nice use case for this. Sure there are others too using different data sources.

We don't have massive coverage of places or things/objects (yet), but there are some relevant reviews for Milton Keynes, Bristol (if only someone would setup the OG Bristol ;), Oxford, London, Montreal...

There are two ways to approach this. 1) get the RDF from e.g. http://revyu.com/tags/milton-keynes/about/rdf for a list of all things tagged milton-keynes (it's a bit minimal intentionally - the rest of the information is available by looking up those URIs - but I could add more data in there to minise the number of requests required); or 2) do a SPARQL query against the endpoint at http://revyu.com/sparql/welcome to get out any data you want in any format you want using SQL-like queries. The endpoint is currently fairly locked down, but shout if you want access.

HTH for starters,

Tom.

On Thu 29 Mar 2007, Daniel Alexander Smith daniel@pling.net wrote:

Of course Open Guides already outputs actual RDF/XML, so some might argue this whole exercise is somewhat redundant.

My interest in this is mostly along the lines of "if I can make my thing talk to your thing without much trouble on my part or yours, then I'd like to". I know we can always say "hey, just grab our RDF/XML and extract the data yourself", but that's yet another step that someone has to take in order to cooperate with us. I think we should be trying to make it easier for other people to cooperate with us, where we can do that without making any major changes or locking ourselves into a single way of doing things.

Kake