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

RE: What is needed to move forward

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 09:36:57 +0100
Message-ID: <14AE8514098875488F9FEACD90C747A20459DC@gnvasmail1a.gva.ebu.ch>
To: <fsasaki@w3.org>, <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

Dear Felix,

It is going to be difficult to expose all our respective views on this via
e-mail.

My position is very simple, I am going to work on an ontology for
Audio-visual content AND services. The more I can share and exchange a
maximum of knowledge on this with the MAWG colleagues, the better. But I
won't be religious about it.

I think the discussion of last week with Yves was covering part of the
overall picture that would need to be clarified like:

- what is the role of structured XML schemas (what do they do that e.g.
RDF/OWL doesn't or maybe less adequately like cardinality and type or ID
management)
- if I go for an RDF/OWL model, what is its role? How different is it from a
dumb RDF description (why is it NOT rdfising existing XML schemas? What
makes its value and who will integrate it to exploit metadata instances
(what would search engines do with it)? 
- How do I generate instances? From where (transformation from structured
metadata instances or from a database)? What are the tools to generate valid
templates from complex models?
- etc. Where are tools? Why will/should large communities ignore the RDF/OWL
model and why it makes sense because they don't need it to generate valuable
metadata?

As concerns the discussion on SKOS, I have enough data models to deal with
to possibly write one RDF model for each and built relationships using SKOS.
That is an option.  However, I think that reconciling the data models is
more critically important.

Another point on SKOS, I can make SKOS transformations from mpeg7/TVA/DVB
like classifications schemes. However, if you look at it carefully you will
see that this can be done in different ways.  Would you all use AltLabel for
the termID?  This would be worth proposing an harmonised representation. And
then, what do we do with it? We point to term within the CS with a URI using
a # (my preference as the user falls back into the schema if available as a
web resource), or a /, or a '.'? Or do we have a proposal to make to point
to THE term?

Quite a lot of work to be done.

If I look at what we have done with the mapping on XMP:

- I have the equivalent with the EBUCOre (close to the PBCore), which is a
sort of refinement of DC that our XMP matrix proposes.
- The IPTC is doing exactly the same work on XMP (less surprisingly)
- The matrix itself and how mappings have been made would be worth going
through term by term to check its validity.

I would therefore suggest that we dedicate part of the next physical meeting
going through these issues asking everyone of us to come with a
presentation. 

This partly explains why I kept a low profile but it seems we have now
reached a new level of maturity in our discussion and we shouldn't miss the
turn.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre
 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: lundi, 9. février 2009 04:17
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: What is needed to move forward


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
http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#req-r11

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
http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html

(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
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Jan/0027.htm

l

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.

Felix




-----------------------------------------
**************************************************

This email and any files transmitted with it 
are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error, 
please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email 
message has been swept by the mailgateway

**************************************************

Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 08:38:12 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 08:38:13 GMT