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

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

From: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 13:50:01 +0100
Message-ID: <49C0EDF9.3050505@sti2.at>
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear Pierre-Antoine,

thank you first of all for your comments. Answers are inline.

Pierre-Antoine Champin schrieb:
> Hi,
> 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*).
We had a discussion about this actually, too. The official defintion of
dc:creator is "Examples of a Creator include a person, an organization,
or a service. Typically, the name of a Creator should be used to
indicate the entity." [2] So a creator can be a service. It is debateble
if this includes a tool, too.
> 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
> created.</rdfs:comment>
>     <skos:closeMatch>
>         <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>
>         </rdf:Description>
>     </skos:closeMatch>
> </rdf:Description>
> or in N3
>   xmp:CreateDate
>    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." .
You are right, the second comment should apply to the target of th


>     pa
> 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

Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger

STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria

Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 12:49:06 UTC

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