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

my token about the "3 or more layer" structure for the ontology

From: <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2008 11:27:33 +0100
Message-ID: <1227090453.4923ea1573bdb@www.few.vu.nl>
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hi everyone,


I was at first very much in favor of an ontology that would distinguish 
different levels of media documents, like "work-manifestation-instance-item", 
but after reading this email from the list:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2008Nov/0076.html
I agreed with the fact that we would probably only need a simple structure in 
our case, that multi-level structures were meant for linking different entities 
that have different status together: if we aim for linking the descriptions of a 
single item between different vocabularies, we need to specify if the single 
item is a work_in_XX_vocabulary, more likely a manifestation_in_XX_vocabulary 
(see note 1 below), to give its "type", and if people/use cases want to link 
this single item to other related works, manifestations, instances or items, 
they can use the framework defined in the schemas reviewed in 
 http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/MultilevelDescriptionReview
and use these properties for completing their description.
 
So we would need a property like "has_type" to link a single description's 
identifier to the correct level of multilevel description schemes.

I changed my mind think that only one "family" of use cases would need more 
levels, that they are somehow context dependent (and could thus be considered as 
requirements for a family of use cases), but of course if it turns out that more 
that one family of use cases needs this distinction, then we should consider 
going for a multilevel structure. Anyway, we would need to map informally the 
way these levels are expressed, in order to provide possible relevant "types" 
for the description of each single element.

note 1: by specifying the different names of the relevant Concepts/terms in 
schemes like VRA, XMP etc., we would informally define a semantic equivalence 
between the ways these schema express these levels of description. It would look 
like:
<metadataFile>
<id="identifier">
<hasType xmpMM:InstanceID, vra:image, frbr:item>
</metadataFile>     

I think that the table
http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/FeaturesTable
is a very valuable tool for people to express their ideas about it, thank you 
very much Ruben for designing it!

Best regards,
Véronique
Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 10:28:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 19 November 2008 10:28:08 GMT