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

Re: [mawg] RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:14:39 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970911181514g12148924vf310576ffac5cf4e@mail.gmail.com>
To: Pierre-Antoine <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Cc: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hello Pierre-Antoine,

2009/11/19 Pierre-Antoine <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>

> Jean-Pierre, Felix,
>
> If I understand your point, our focus should be on enabling existing
> formats to map to the API, not on hoping that people will drop those
> format in favor of RDF with an ad-hoc new vocabulary. And I agree with
> that.
>
> However, I don't think that defining an API and defining a language are
> so different tasks as you seem to imply. An API is a vocabulary for a
> programming language. An ontology is (in the SemWeb world) a vocabulary
> for RDF. We are to focus on the API, granted, and the ontology is here
> only to formally define the mapping. But let's not discard a proposal
> just because it is about a "vocabulary".
>


I think Jean-Pierre is not saying that we should discard the proposal. I
think he is talking about "what should we focus on?", and that he has
worries of the group getting side-tracked. My take on that would be "first
the easy part", that is: do not discard the proposal, but work on it after
we have finished our main work items in a timely manner.

Best,

Felix



>
> I think subproperties would help provide a fine-grain access to the
> underlying metadata. I think that subproperties should be an optional
> attribute of our return values. So users could just stick to the value
> (interpreted in the context of the ma: property they retrieved, or they
> could try to make more sense out of the provided sub-property.
>
> Whether we should define our own set of subproperty or just reflect
> those provided by the underlying format... I'm still not sure. Both
> options have their advantages.
>
>  pa
>
>
>
> Le 18/11/2009 15:28, Evain, Jean-Pierre a écrit :
> > HI Felix,
> >
> >
> >
> > That was also my perception.
> >
> >
> >
> > R, JP
> >
> >
> >
> > *From:* felix.sasaki@googlemail.com [mailto:felix.sasaki@googlemail.com]
> > *On Behalf Of *Felix Sasaki
> > *Sent:* mercredi, 18. novembre 2009 15:20
> > *To:* Evain, Jean-Pierre
> > *Cc:* Joakim Söderberg; Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> > *Subject:[mawg] * Re: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi Jean-Pierre,
> >
> > we are definitely working on a tool to map with a number of existing
> > formats. Note also that all the concrete implementations we have so far
> > go this route, and the browser scenario proposed by Silvia does that
> > too. The "new" properties are no new vocabulary, but just a means to
> > make clear what the smallest common nominator between existing formats
> is.
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Felix
> >
> > 2009/11/18 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch <mailto:evain@ebu.ch>>
> >
> > Joakim,
> >
> > Here we are.  Are we redefining a new Dublin Core ("a nice vocabulary
> > that others would like to use" as you call it) or are we working on a
> > tool to map with a number of existing formats?
> >
> > It is a matter of scope.
> >
> > In any case, if we want to do the former then we'd better work on RDF
> > and leave those who have used other formats map to it. Then we would
> > really be working on an ontology although archaic for an ontology.
> >
> > As I said during the F2F, we would now badly need to know exactly what
> > we are trying to achieve.
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Jean-pierre
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
> > <mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org>
> > [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
> > <mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org>] On Behalf Of Joakim
> > Söderberg
> > Sent: mercredi, 18. novembre 2009 14:57
> > To: Tobias Bürger
> > Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org <mailto:
> public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> > Subject:[mawg] RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties
> >
> > Jean-Pierre did not like it because he doesn't believe that there will
> > be mappings to all sub properties from all formats. Ex. "album title" in
> > TVA, ID3 etc.
> >
> > He has a point but I think that if we define a nice vocabulary that
> > becomes popular, more mappings will follow from several contributors.
> > Which by the way inclines that we should make it possible in the future
> > to (easily) update the ontology. But I guess that has to do with the
> > implementation.
> >
> > /Joakim
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tobias Bürger [mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at
> > <mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at>]
> > Sent: den 18 november 2009 13:57
> > To: Joakim Söderberg
> > Subject:[mawg] Re: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties
> >
> > Hi Joakim,
> >
> > I agree, having subproperties is like extending the core set with
> > qualifying terms for each of the attributes we defined. I think that
> > having subproperties could give us a more precise way to define the
> > mappings and not to end up in being too generic in parts where most of
> > the formats we have in scope are more specific.
> >
> > I have seen that there were some people that did not like the idea of
> > subproperties @ the F2F. What were their arguments (if you remember)?
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Tobias
> >
> > Joakim Söderberg wrote:
> >> Hi Tobias, thanks for accepting the AP.
> >>
> >> I had a look at the properties defined in AMG (All Media Guide; see
> > Video_tables) and EBU (see zip file).
> >>
> >> The more I think about the sub-properties the more I think they are an
> > integral part of the Ontology. It's like extending the core set with
> > qualifying terms for each core attribute, or what do you think?
> >>
> >>
> >> All the best
> >> Joakim
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Tobias Bürger [mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at
> > <mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at>]
> >> Sent: den 18 november 2009 08:32
> >> To: Joakim Söderberg
> >> Subject:[mawg] [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties
> >>
> >> Hi Joakim,
> >>
> >> as you might know I got the action to work on the subproperties for
> > the properties we defined in the ontology. I started to read what you
> > discussed during the F2F and also talked to Florian yesterday to discuss
> > this.
> >> I have seen that you have already started on this issue at
> >> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Sub_Types
> >> I just wanted to ask you which sources you already considered, i.e.
> >> where you looked for possible subproperties? Based on that I can start
> > of working on the subproperties.
> >>
> >> Thanks a lot in advance for your answer!
> >>
> >> Best regards,
> >>
> >> Tobias
> >>
> >> --
> >> _________________________________________________
> >> Dr. Tobias Bürger
> >>
> >> STI Innsbruck
> >> University of Innsbruck, Austria
> >> http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/
> >>
> >> tobias.buerger@sti2.at <mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
> >> __________________________________________________
> >>
> >
> > --
> > _________________________________________________
> > Dr. Tobias Bürger
> >
> > STI Innsbruck
> > University of Innsbruck, Austria
> > http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/
> >
> > tobias.buerger@sti2.at <mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
> > __________________________________________________
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > * ************************************************** This email and any
> > files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the
> > use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
> > received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This
> > footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the
> > mailgateway ************************************************** *
> >
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 23:15:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 18 November 2009 23:15:21 GMT