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,


[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)

[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.

[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:

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

Received on Tuesday, 18 November 2008 06:20:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:31 UTC