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

Re: action 78 - Discussion about interoperability

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:34:29 +0900
Message-ID: <497FEE65.2040602@w3.org>
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>
CC: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, public-media-annotation@w3.org

+1 to all what Pierre-Antoine said.

Felix

Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Tobias Bürger wrote :
>   
>> Regarding the mapping, and more specifically from where we should map:
>> The mapping should be to our core ontology to whose semantics we
>> committed ourselves or will commit. So we will define what we allow as
>> the domain and range of a property.
>>     
>
> Agreed. But defining the range of the a property can be done at several
> levels:
>
> - high-level/human semantics (e.g. Creator : the agent primarily
> responsible of creating the resource)
>
> - low-level/machine semantics (e.g. an instance of dcterms:Agent OR the
> name of such an instance)
>
> - syntax (e.g. a Uri OR a String)
>
>   
>> And I disagree to the last statement from Pierre-Antoine above: if we
>> describe the ontology less specific than we also do not need to be more
>> precise in the API. It has been my understanding that this group defines
>> an ontology consisting of a set of core properties for the description
>> of media objects on the Web to which all the formats in our scope will
>> be mapped to. Saying that, if you describe the ontology more
>> lightweight, meaning perhaps with less detail or level of specifity,
>> than you also map to something not very specific.
>>     
>
> I think you misunderstood my statement. I should not have written
> "specific" but "formal".
> It is not about defining only "creator" vs. "composer" and "writer"
> (specific), but about defining only high-level semantics vs. defining
> also low-level semantics and syntax.
>
> High-level semantics clearly belongs to the ontology.
> Syntax clearly belongs to the API.
> Low-level semantics, on the other hand, can be discussed. We could also
> describe it formally, using a formal ontology language (this is what
> those languages are about). Or we  could describe it only as prose, as
> Felix suggest.
> If we choose prose, then we have the choice to put it in the ontology or
> API specification. Hence my statement "the less specific we are in
> describing the ontology, the more precise we will have to be in
> describing the API".
>
> Thank you Tobias for having me explain that: it helped me make my ideas
> on the subject much clearer to myself :)
>
> I hope this makes sense for others as well :-P
>
>   
>> For me the API is a means to transparently access a description of a
>> media object in a format about which I do not want to care about when
>> accessing the API.
>>     
>
> +1
>
>   
>> So we should define return types? Or should the
>> burden of identying the return type be shifted to the user? (I guess we
>> had this discussion before but did not come to a conclusion....)
>>     
>
> I think tha we should not only define return types (that is the easy
> part: syntax); we should also specify the "content" of the return value,
> which involves high-level AND low-level semantics.
>
>   pa
>
>   
Received on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 05:35:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 January 2009 05:35:36 GMT