W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > November 2008

Re: Proposal for ontology and api structure

From: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2008 07:21:26 +0100
Message-ID: <49225EE6.50102@sti2.at>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Dear Felix,

thanks for the intial draft!

I have some comments, questions, and pointers...

>From the abstract one could infer that the ontology is only a
description of relations. I thought that the ontology should reflect a
core vocabulary which then is mapped to existing formats, or am I wrong?
I am however fine with the statement that we will only refer to existing
properties instead of creation new ones.

For section 2.1: Perhaps we could seperate properties into relations and
attributes. Relations reflect properties which refer to other resources,
attributes to a datatype value.

Regarding the general structure of the ontology deliverable and how we
want to build the ontology: I wonder if we want to adopt one of the
existing ontology engineering methodologies?

There is plenty of material available on this:

One of the basic methdologies is presented in [1]

The methodology consists of: (1) Identify purpose and scope (2) Build
the ontology (Domain capture, coding, integrate existing ontologies),
(3) Evaluation, (4) Documentation

Another one which is often used and simple is presented in [2].

More detailed methodologies include METHONTOLOGY, DILIGENT and others.
Most methodologies are listed in [3].

Regarding how to document our ontology: I found the presentation of the
enterprise ontology in [4] very good but this could also be too detailed
for our case.

Just some pointers from the ontology engineering community. Perhaps some
are useful.

Talk to you later!

Best regards,

Tobias

[1] Mike Uschold, Mike Uschold, Michael Gruninger, Michael
Gruninger``Mike Uschold, Mike Uschold, Michael Gruninger, Michael
Gruninger'' Knowledge Engineering Review Vol 11. p. 93---136 (1996)
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.48.5917

[2] Natalya F. Noy  and  Deborah L. McGuinness. ``Ontology Development
101: A Guide to Creating Your First Ontology''. Stanford Knowledge
Systems Laboratory Technical Report KSL-01-05 and Stanford Medical
Informatics Technical Report SMI-2001-0880, March 2001.
http://ksl.stanford.edu/people/dlm/papers/ontology101/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html

[3] http://semanticweb.org/wiki/Ontology_Engineering

[4] Mike Uschold, Martin King, Stuart Moralee and Yannis Zorgios (1998)
The Enterprise Ontology The Knowledge Engineering Review , Vol. 13,
Special Issue on Putting Ontologies to Use. Available online:
http://www.aiai.ed.ac.uk/project/pub/documents/1998/98-ker-ent-ontology.ps



Felix Sasaki schrieb:
> Hi all,
>
> I have created a proposal for the structure of the ontology and the API. See
> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html?rev=1.9
>
> It would be great to get your feedback on these via mail and / or during
> the next call (agenda to be provided). Some notes before:
>
> - This is only a proposal for the general structure of ontologoy and the
> API, nothing put in stone, and not a lot of material.
>
> - Ontology and API are currently in one draft. The reason is that I
> think we have agreement that there should be a close alignment between
> the two, and having one document was an easy way to achieve this.
>
> - For the timeline, I mainly would like to discuss this before and at
> the f2f in Belgium, especially since Raphael is on holiday until then
> and I know that he already has worked on an ontology, which I think we
> definitely should take into account.
>
> - You might be surprised that the above draft does not contain any
> formal definition in RDF or a different format. That is on purpose: from
> the viewpoint of the API, it is sufficient to have for each property a
> name, an informal description of mappings to existing formats, and the
> related API methods. The draft contains an example for the createDate
> property. For other use cases than the API, we might need a more formal
> description, but I have put the informal one in the center here to see
> if in that way we can gather the attention of the browser vendor community.
>
> - While writing this draft I have not taken the discussion off XMP,
> transmission.cc or comments on the use cases & requirements document
> into account. Again this is on purpose, to be able to focus on the API
> use case - for the time being.
>
> Looking forward for your feedback.
>
> Regards, Felix
>
>
>   

-- 
_________________________________________________
Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger

STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria
http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/

tobias.buerger@sti2.at
__________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 06:20:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 November 2008 06:20:04 GMT