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

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

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 2009 01:24:55 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970903180924r1a24a984k2600608061593723@mail.gmail.com>
To: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Cc: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hello Veronique, all,

some general questions: what relations in SKOS do you expect to be necessary
for the table? broadMatch, closeMatch, exactMatch, ...? Could you give
examples for each of the necesary relations?

Felix

2009/3/18 Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>

> Hi!
>
> I used this controversial mapping example to show that we could not use
> owl:equivalentProperty between the properties (this is an extreme case, but
> in my opinion even very closely related properties should not be stated as
> equivalent); in dcterms there are better mappings than with dc:date anyway,
> so the whole "mapping proposal" is subject to debate: the whole idea was to
> show an example of a syntax displaying relations in skos between pairs of
> properties. The "real" file will be based on the mapping table after the
> reviewing phase. But I agree with your comment and with the
> "borderline-ness" of this mapping proposition.
> And you are indeed right about the 2nd rdfs:comment, thanks for correcting
> it!
>
> Best,
> Véronique
>
>
> On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
>
>  Tobias Bürger wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>
>> About dc:Creator, since
>> 1/ the DC spec calls it a service rather than a software, and
>> 2/ the other two examples (person, organization) are clearly agents,
>>
>> I tend to interpret "service" here not as *any* software, but as having
>> some "agentive quality".
>>
>> For example, a webcam publishing photos on the web every 10 minutes, is
>> making it "on its own", in a sense. Although one could attribute those
>> photos to the person/organization that owns the webcam, it may seem more
>> relevant to state that the webcam (or the software running it) creates
>> the photos.
>>
>> But this is, in my view, very different from stating that "photoshop" or
>> "the gimp" created a photo that I edited with them.
>>
>>
>> Note that I have no definite optinion on whether the software running
>> the webcam is an appropriate value for xmp:CreatorTool, though... :)
>>
>>  pa
>>
>>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 16:25:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 March 2009 16:25:36 GMT