W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > August 2010

Re: [mawg] action-249: Ontology rev 5 available & call for competency questions wrt. to actor - role part of the ontology

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 16:10:05 +0200
Message-ID: <4C75243D.3050608@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Tobias and Jean-Pierre,

a few remarks:

1/ some properties have multiple domain declarations, e.g. title has
domaine MediaResource and NamedFragment, meaning that everything with a
title is *both* a MediaResource and a NamedFragment, which is obviously
wrong. What you need here is

  ma:title rdfs:domain [ owl:unionOf
      ( ma:MediaResource ma:NamedFragment ) ] .


2/ some properties have complex domains, such as e.g. duration applies
to MediaRessources which are not Images... I understand the rationale of
those constraints, and I agree they are probably *semantically* correct,
but on the *pragmatic* level, they may give wrong impressions, like:
- any media resource must belong to one of the 3 subclasses defined by
the ontology -- not the intent of the ontology, IMHO
- any media resource which is not an Image can have a duration -- as a
(quite farfetched) counterexample, think of a Smell resource


3/ I am a bit confused about Contributor being *equivalent* to
(contributorIs some Agent). I would rather make it a *subclass* of this
restriction; the equivalence semantically would follow from the domain
of contributorIs.

Since this is semantically equivalent, why would I like to change it? It
may be a pedantic distinction, but I find it a little disturbing, as it
creates a kind of cyclic definition with the domain axiom of
contributorIs, and makes it difficult to understand the intent of the
ontology author -- here again, I'm only talking about the pragmatic
level; the semantics of all this is perfectly well defined.

  pa



On 19/08/2010 09:44, Tobias Bürger wrote:
>   Dear all,
> 
> Jean-Pierre and myself had some discussions around the ontology recently 
> which resulted in an updated version of the current OWL version 
> (revision 5) which you can find here: 
> http://www.salzburgresearch.at/~tbuerger/ma-ont-rev5.owl
> 
> (essentiallly it includes some rules and restrictions for some elements)
> 
> We are still discussing around the actor-role pattern in the ontology 
> involving the agent (i.e. person) and its role (creator, actor) wrt. to 
> a media resource.
> (see the discussion which we started here: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Jul/0034.html)
> 
> To somehow reverse engineer this problem we would like the members of 
> the group to contribute the type of queries they would like to pose wrt. 
> to this part of the ontology in order to decide which modelling option 
> we should go for.
> 
> Thanks a lot for your input!
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Tobias
> 
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 14:10:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 August 2010 14:10:41 GMT