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

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

From: Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:59:32 +0100
To: Pierre-Antoine <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
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>
Message-ID: <CD9846F872C7874BB4E0FDF2A61EF09F3CDB149B81@RZJC1EX.jr1.local>
Dear Felix and Pierre-Antoine,

I agree with the proposal that we should consider subproperties in a generic way at first. We can then go ahead and get the implementation working and decide on a normative set of subproperties later.

Best regards,
Werner

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pierre-Antoine [mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr]
> Sent: Freitag, 20. November 2009 09:31
> To: Felix Sasaki
> Cc: Bailer, Werner; Evain, Jean-Pierre; Joakim Söderberg; Tobias
> Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [mawg] RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties
>
> Hi all,
>
> For the record, I also agree with the last exchanges btw Werner and
> Felix, as well as Felix's proposal below.
>
> My only concern is : shouldn't we make the API ready for subproperties
> right now? If we don't, we might find out that we made some choices
> that prevent anyone to add them...
>
> As I already suggested, a very basic use of subproperty would be not to
> standardize any, but consider them as a placeholder for information
> about the *actual* property/sub-property used in the underlying format
> -- and even leave it to the implementation to decide how to expressit.
> Later on (possibly only in version 2.0), we might still decide to
> standardize *some* sub-properties to be put in this placeholder.
>
>   pa
>
> Le 20/11/2009 08:52, Felix Sasaki a écrit :
> > Hello Werner,
> >
> > thank you for the clarifications. There seems to be one open question
> > to
> > me: Is it OK for us to start work on subproperties although we have
> > not reached our goals even with the simple properties? IMO, we should
> > first for all simple properties
> > - define the API methods (done to some extend)
> > - provide test cases and test suite material (not done at all)
> > - run the tests with at least two implementations so that we can be
> > sure to declare victory, even if we don't get to the sub property
> > part.
> > So I am saying not "no" about sub properties, but postpone work on
> > them until we have done our basic job.
> >
> > Would you and others agree with that?
> >
> > Best,
> >
> > Felix
> >
> > 2009/11/20 Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at
> > <mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at>>
> >
> >     Dear Felix,
> >
> >     >> > 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?
> >
> >     Yes, I agree. As Doug suggested at the F2F, we can state in the
> >     recommendation that the RDF representation is not a mandatory
> part,
> >     however, if someone uses an RDF representation, it needs to
> conform
> >     to the definition in the rec.
> >
> >     > All questions we discuss below about subproperties are IMO
> independent
> >     > of the question "RDF or not".
> >
> >     I agree.
> >
> >     Best regards,
> >     Werner
> >
> >     > > 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
> >     <mailto: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 <mailto: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>
> >     > > [mailto: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 <mailto: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> <mailto: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>>
> >     > > > [mailto: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> <mailto:public-media-
> >     <mailto:public-media->
> >     > > annotation@w3.org <mailto: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>
> >     > > > <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>
> >     > > > <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>
> >     <mailto: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>
> >     <mailto: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 09:00:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 20 November 2009 09:00:18 GMT