Review of Tagging Use Case
Two reviews available
Relevance to XG. The use case discusses some of the main interoperability issues in sharing tag-based mm content annotations across different applications/users. However, it seems to me that all mentioned problems relate directly to the lack of semantics that the use of ad hoc keywords/tags entails (inability to declare and preserve hypernym and hyponym relations, semantic equality based on string-level matching, etc.). I’m not sure how well this content description vocabulary interoperability aspect meets the multimedia standards interoperability one as discussed in this XG.
Clarity. The document is well-written and easy to follow. Personomy interoperability is interrelated with semantic enrichment of personomies (at least in the presented context of the use case), so maybe they should be treated in a unified manner both in the motivating example and the possible solutions section. The issue of implicit semantics in a given folder organization constitutes a quite different case than the rest of the examples in the motivating example section; better to show this using different subsections.
Solutions. The use of SKOS is an example of how SW technologies could make a value in the considered use case.
Relevance to XG. Although media essence is mentioned severalfold (YouTube, Flickr, etc.), the focus of the use case seems to be the annotation of resources in general by utilising tags shared on the Web. The problems of how to share, align, merge, and reuse tags across application and domain boundaries are highlighted and discussed. Still, the main question IMHO is: Where is the media-specific part; where comes the media semantics into play?
Clarity. The sub-use cases are well described, though a clean-up might help in terms of:
- apply same captions used in the 'Possible Solutions' section to 'Motivating example' section
- give a one-sentence overview of the sub-use case, e.g. following (RIF-UC 2006)
Solutions. The application of SW technologies has been depicted (SKOS, etc.). It might be a good idea to also have a look at related domains - cf. (Hepp et.al. 2006).
(RIF-UC 2006) RIF Use Cases and Requirements. W3C Working Draft 10 July 2006. Available at http://www.w3.org/TR/rif-ucr/
(Hepp et.al. 2006) M. Hepp, D. Bachlechner, and K. Siorpaes. Harvesting Wiki Consensus - Using Wikipedia Entries as Ontology Elements. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop: SemWiki2006 - From Wiki to Semantics, co-located with the 3rd Annual European Semantic Web Conference (ESWC 2006), Budva, Montenegro, 2006. Available at http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/747700.html