W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > February 2009

What is needed to move forward

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 12:17:28 +0900 (JST)
Message-ID: <1254.>
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Hello all,

there may be the impression that I do not want a semantic web based
approach for our ontology. This is not the case, and I very much hope that
one slice of requirement 11
will be an RDF-based ontology. However, I am very worried with approving
such an approach *at the moment* for various reasons:

1) We have in my view an unclear requirement "allow for several
abstraction layers like FRBR", without a clear scope description and a
clear relation to existing formats (see separate thread)
2) we have no restriction of the expressive power of an implementation.
Without such a restriction I am worried about feature creep and as a
result too much complexity in the ontology.
3) Of coures 1) and 2) are chicken-and-egg problems: How to decide about
them if we don't have proposals on the table? We are missing just these:
small, but concrete proposals for the "semantic web" conformance slice.

For the conformance slice "prose" we have
- the table
- as a proposal how to relate that to the API the draft at
(think that each row of the table becomase a subsection 4.2.x)
- an implementation which makes use of such a proposal, and solves the
granularity problem Joakim mentioned, see the "dateGeneral vs. pubdate"
example at

It would be great to
- Understand what (if any) problems see people with the "prose" proposal
as it is described above, and
- Have somebody creating even a toy implementatin of the ontology and the
API, the ontology replying to 1), 2) and 3) above. I know about the action
item for Pierre-Antoine and the SKOS example from Veronique, but I would
like to see an integrated example, as we have it for the "prose" approach
already, to know if people only think about SKOS or OWL (which part?), if
SKOS when which part etc.

Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 03:18:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:33 UTC