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: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 17:18:04 +0200
To: 'Pierre-Antoine Champin' <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
CC: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CEEB7F140@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Corrected title and will see if similar multirange properties have been used elsewhere instead if using union.

-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre-Antoine Champin [mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr] 
Sent: mercredi, 25. août 2010 16:30
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: [mawg] action-249: Ontology rev 5 available & call for competency questions wrt. to actor - role part of the ontology

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)

> 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 :)


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, 25 August 2010 15:18:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:38 UTC