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

RE: [FYI] [W3C MAWG] Example of property mapping using semantic technologies

From: Soohong Daniel Park <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:04:48 +0900
To: 'Tobias Bürger' <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Message-id: <010f01c9a700$f36d3970$da47ac50$%park@samsung.com>
Veronique and Tobias, 

sorry for missing your good discussion today call due to lack of time space.
It will be discussed during the next call. Of course, we can keep working on
this thread on the mailing list until the next call...

That's very good information and thanks a lot.


-----
Soohong Daniel Park
Standard Architect, blog.naver.com/natpt
DMC Business, Samsung Electronics. KOREA


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Burger
> Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:14 PM
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: [FYI] [W3C MAWG] Example of property mapping using semantic
> technologies
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> Veronique and myself have our first toy example ready to demonstrate how
> the mapping of properties could work using semantics. The example maps
> properties from Dublin Core [2]  to XMP [4].
> 
> We see 4 different solutions on how we could approach this mapping:
> 
> (1) The first option is to use SKOS mappings [1]. The problem with this
> option is, that SKOS mappings were being conceived to hold between SKOS
> concepts and not properties. So we would  use the mapping vocabulary in a
> semantically incorrect way (from the point of the SKOS specification and
> the inference engines trying to make sense of it).
> 
> (2) The second option is to use owl:equivalentProperty / owl:sameAs which
> we can not consider given the different semantics of the properties
> defined in the different formats
> 
> (3) The third option is to subProperty all the properties from the formats
> to e.g. Dublin Core [2], Dublin Core Terms [3] or any other format which
> is generic enough.
> 
> (4) The fourth option is to create our own authoritative schema which
> consolidates all the formats we are looking at and to which the other
> formats can be mapped to.
> 
> Veronique has prepared a small example using the first option which
> matches from the DC properties from [2] to XMP properties from [4].
> Please find the example attached (XMPtoDCskosMapping.rdf). The XMP
> properties came from the XMP example document which is also attached
> (xmpexample.xml).
> 
> We are curious to hear your opinion on the options above and our toy
> example.
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Tobias & Veronique
> 
> 
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#mapping
> [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/
> [3] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
> [4] http://www.exiv2.org/tags-xmp-xmpMM.html
> 
> --
> _________________________________________________
> Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger
> 
> STI Innsbruck
> University of Innsbruck, Austria
> http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/
> 
> tobias.buerger@sti2.at
> __________________________________________________
Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 13:05:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 17 March 2009 13:05:41 GMT