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: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 07:31:25 +0100
Message-ID: <ba4134970911192231l1e0a10f3r295dc2007afbe9af@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Cc: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, Pierre-Antoine <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hello Werner, all,


2009/11/19 Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>

> Dear Jean-Pierre, all,
>
> > it is a matter of scope as I said before. If you want a vocabulary in
> > RDF to which people map, fair enough and I was hopping this was the
> > original task of the group.
>
> I agree with Pierre-Antoine that defining an RDF vocabulary to map to and
> defining an API to access the properties in this vocabulary are not
> contradicting goals. In fact, this is how some of the mapping approaches
> that several people in the group have implemented so far work internally:
> map to the properties defined in our vocabulary (represented in OWL) and
> then provide getter functions to access these values. So an implementation
> getAsRDF() function that gives you the source metadata expressed with our
> vocabulary.
>

well, my implementation is XML-based. So I have a very high preference to
not have to implement RDF-processing to be a conformant implementation. So
if we create an RDF vocabulary, it should be only one serialization of our
ontology, and support for it should not be mandatory. Do you agree with
that?

All questions we discuss below about subproperties are IMO independent of
the question "RDF or not". And I see no "yes or no" about sub properties,
but rather "who puts the effort to create them and validate them", validate
meaning against existing data and the respective communities. So IMO we
should decide this pragmatically, judging if there is somebody doing the
work.

Best,

Felix


>
> > More specifically sub properties will either inevitably go further in
> > the direction of one existing vocabulary (then why not adopt) or
> > diverge hence significantly reducing the chances oif mapping in profit
> > of a 'nice new vocabulary'.  By the way, by which magic this group in
> > particular would come with the super nice new solution?  All those we
> > are mapping to tried to achieve that goal.
>
> I absolutely agree that we face these risks. However, as you said, we aim
> at mapping existing formats. If we do not consider subproperties, we can
> only map on a very coarse level, leaving it to the application developer to
> handle the semantics of subproperties coming from different formats. In my
> opinion supporting a defined set of subproperties is useful for the
> following reasons:
>
> - Allowing users of the API to have well defined semantics of subproperties
> independent of the source format. If the subproperties of a property agree
> in many of the formats, then we do not invent anything new and we do not
> complicate mapping for these formats. If they do not match, we have to
> decide which format to follow and map the others.
>
> - There are cases where properties are defined on a different granularity
> level. In a format like MPEG-7, we could say we just map to creator, and
> leave the subproperty to a role classification scheme. However, ID3 for
> example has distinct properties for composer, text writer, etc., so in such
> a case we have to make a decision about how to map to subproperties of
> creator.
>
> - All subproperties that we do not define in our set can still be passed
> on, leaving it to the application developer what to do with it, but not
> losing the information.
>
> Best regards,
> Werner
>
> > ________________________________________
> > De : Pierre-Antoine [pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr]
> > Date d'envoi : mercredi, 18. novembre 2009 19:00
> > À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
> > Cc : 'Felix Sasaki'; Joakim Söderberg; Tobias Bürger; public-media-
> > annotation@w3.org
> > Objet : Re: [mawg]  RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties
> >
> > 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 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 Friday, 20 November 2009 06:32:13 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 November 2009 06:32:15 GMT