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

Re: IBBT Metadata model + return values

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:12:23 +0900
Message-ID: <49634AA7.3040700@w3.org>
To: Chris.Poppe@UGent.be
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org, 'Rik Van de Walle' <rik.vandewalle@ugent.be>, erik.mannens@ugent.be

Hello Chris, all,

many thanks for your replies, and for joining the mailing list. It would
be great if you could join officially the WG, that's probably no problem?

Just some questions /comments below.

Chris Poppe さんは書きました:
> Dear,
> Please find my answers enclosed below,
> Kind regards,
> Chris Poppe
> Ghent University - IBBT
> Faculty of Engineering
> Department of Electronics and Information Systems (ELIS)
> Multimedia Lab Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201
> B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent
> Belgium
> t: +32 9 33 14959
> f: +32 9 33 14896
> t secr: +32 9 33 14911
> e: chris.poppe@ugent.be
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
> Sent: dinsdag 16 december 2008 15:09
> To: Erik Mannens
> Subject: IBBT Metadata model + return values
> Hi Erik,
> Chris presented the IBBT metadata model to us in Ghent, and we would
> like to have information about the mappings it defines. Are these
> available somewhere?
> [CP] The mappings are currently not available since these are only partially
> implemented. Note that the mappings are defined to use OWL constructs like
> equivalentClass, so using standardized ways to link different ontologies
> with each other (The IBBT project required only a minimal mapping). 
> Additionally, we looked into the usage of rules to define instance
> equivalence (e.g., to define that a person (read the instance of a class
> Person_ontolgoy_A) described in one ontology is equivalent to a person
> described in another ontology  (read the instance of a class
> Person_ontolgoy_B). So, I see the mapping as the combination of
> OWL-constructs and rules that would allow to map instances on each other.
> (These are currently not supported in the system since it is hard to
> incorporate a rule engine in the framework used within the IBBT project).
>  Also, we are having a question on return values:
> for each property is there just one type of return value, or are there
> several ones? Eg. if you query for the name of the creator of a media
> object, would you always get a string value, or sometimes something else
> (e.g. an URI)?
> [CP]Our metadata model defines the actual type of these
> (DataType)properties. So for instance the name of the creator would in our
> case be a string. The metadata service (which contains a web service holding
> methods relevant for the use cases of the IBBT project) can of course
> convert/interpret this string to whatever is needed... 
> In the model we make the separation between a name (information about the
> person) and an identifier (which refers to the actual person).
> (What's in a name :)).
> I guess I would favour multiple properties when confusion is possible.

that woudl mean for the API to have e.g. a getCreatorAsURI method, or
getCreatorAsString, right?

> Although this might increase the size of the resulting ontology.
> Agreeing on a common format for a property, which can not be misinterpreted,
> is necessary for interoperability between systems.

I would say "agreeing on a common data type" is necessary. Maybe you
meant the same, I was just not sure.

> It would also be great to have Chris directly particpating in the group,
> if that would be possible ...
> [CP]In fact, I just joined the mailing list. I remember that I have an
> action point in this WG, namely the mapping table for DIG35. I was wondering
> in what format we need to distribute this and how?

Maybe follow the suggestion from Joakim? See

Received on Tuesday, 6 January 2009 12:13:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:32 UTC