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

Re: mapping table 2.0

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2009 12:50:03 +0000
Message-ID: <49A29B7B.2090407@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hi Joakim,

I'm not sure designing "yet another" ontology of abstraction levels is a
good idea. Felix already pointed out that FRBR, for example, was not
entirely satisfactory to the BBC, and that they had to design their own
abstraction hierarchy.

I would favor a minimalistic approach with a single and very general
property. For that matter, it seems to me that dc:source [1] is a good
candidate, and this is what I used in my toy implementation.

More refined abstraction hierarchies could be defined by specializing
this property and introducing new classes, like the ones in FRBR or in
the BBC ontology, but I think committing to one or the other would only
limit the scope of our work.


[1] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/#terms-source

Joakim Söderberg a écrit :
>> This shows, in my (biased ;) opinion, that even "flat looking"
>> metadata scheme involve several layers of abstraction, and so that
>> our ontology must take this into account, preferably in an explicit
>> way.
> This makes me think that we should have a more complex ontology,with
> some fundamental entities that can resolve mappings from/to different
> levels of abstraction.
> We already have that as a requirement: Requirement r07: Introducing
> several abstraction levels in the ontology
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2009/WD-media-annot-reqs-20090119/#req-r07
> I would like to ask the group if there are any volunteers to start
> drafting such Ontology?
> /Joakim
Received on Monday, 23 February 2009 12:53:59 UTC

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