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

Re: Publishing the Mapping Table (was minutes of 2009-03-10 teleconference)

From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 17:59:08 +0100
Cc: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, David Singer <singer@apple.com>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B93E4CEC-F3A1-4DA3-8FA4-A5236852816B@few.vu.nl>
To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Hi Felix, all,

I think that the first case that David was mentioning is typically  
answered by a "central authoritative" ontology or equivalence  
repository: for one query, it gives the possible properties in  
different vocabularies (XMP, MPEG7 etc); the second case is the skos  
modeling case *without* a "central authoritative" ontology or  
equivalence repository, which states that one property in one  
vocabulary is comparable (in some way) to a property in another  
vocabulary. But I might have misunderstood teh point...

Vťronique

On Mar 18, 2009, at 5:34 PM, Felix Sasaki wrote:

> Hello Raphael,
>
> I missed that one, sorry. I think the reason is that David was  
> asking whether we want to provide the functionality of a two way  
> mapping, and not specifically referring to the expressive power of  
> SKOS or another possible formalization which may be used to  
> implement the functionality. If I understand you right you just  
> explained the SKOS example, but did not ask for the functionality?
>
> Felix
>
>
> 2009/3/18 RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
> Dear Felix,
>
>
> everything we have done so far, including the mapping table, the toy  
> implementations of the API and the formalization example in SKOS  
> etc., are one way mapping, mostly using properties available in XMP  
> as the target of the mapping. That is, property A-1 from format A  
> can be mapped to property XMP-x. So far I have not seen anybody in  
> the Working Group asking for a two way mapping, so I regard this as  
> an unspoken consensus that we are working "only" on the one way  
> mapping.
>
> This is *not* exactly true.
> In the case of the toy example of a possible mapping formalization  
> in SKOS, we have a two-ways mapping, since for example, the  
> skos:related property is owl:symmetric [1]. The skos:mappingRelation  
> might be reflexive, symmetric too.
>
>  RaphaŽl
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-primer/
>
>
> -- 
> RaphaŽl Troncy
> CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
> Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
> Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
> Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 17:00:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 March 2009 17:00:48 GMT