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

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

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 12:41:03 +0000
Message-ID: <49C0EBDF.8010809@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org

sorry as well for being absent yesterday without prior notification.

A few comments:

1/ I do not agree about the mapping between xmp:CreatorTool (a *tool*)
    and dc:creator (an *agent*).

2/ each XMP has two rdfs:comment's, and a skos:closeMatch, although it
seems to me that the second rdfs:comment should apply to the *target* of
the skos:closeMatch. For example, the first description should look like:

<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://wwwns.adobe.com/xmp/1.0/CreateDate">
    <rdfs:comment>The date and time the resource was originally
        <rdf:Description rdf:about="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/date"/>
            <rdfs:comment>A point or period of time associated with an
event in the lifecycle of the resource.</rdfs:comment>

or in N3
   rdfs:comment "The date and time the resource was originally created." ;
    skos:closeMatch dc:date .

  dc:date rdfs:comment  "A point or period of time associated with an
event in the lifecycle of the resource." .


Tobias Bürger a écrit :
> 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
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:41:48 UTC

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