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 16:29:58 +0200
Message-ID: <4C7528E6.3060509@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
CC: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
On 25/08/2010 16:19, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> Hi Pierre-Antoine,
> 
> Thanks for the feedback.
> 
> 1/ funny that title got messed up, we need to check this.  No need
> for a title for named fragment whose name is given by its URI. Point
> taken.

just to make my point clear: I was not arguing about NamedFragments
having a title or not, but about the use of multiple domain (or range,
for that matter) axioms about the same property.

locator has the same erroneous pattern; it should use a union.

> 2/ Here I still believe we need to be semantically rigorous. TopBraid
> and Protégé have no problem with it and triples being generated avoid
> duration being attributed to pictures.

Again, I agree this is semantically correct; what I find disturbing is
the *way* it is being expressed.

I would rather keep the domain of those properties simple (i.e.
MediaResource), and add addistional subclasses to subclasses of
MediaResource, i.e.

  Image subclassOf (duration = 0)
  AudioTrack subclassOf (frameWidth = 0)
  etc...

> 3/ This is a good question. I did it that way wondering at what level
> we were in the ontology, Doesn't change much anyway. This can be
> changed easily if you think it is more appropriate.

If I am the only one having a problem with that, do not bother to change
it :)

  pa
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 14:30:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 25 August 2010 14:30:36 GMT