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: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:18:20 +0200
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, '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: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CEEB7F143@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
For the sake of completeness (and you will not say I am not considering all options or underestimating your comments), it would appear that the implementation of restrictions on e.g. picture having a null duration would be better implemented using intersectionOf. But I must admit It doesn't sound right to me to express such unnatural property like it is a picture because duration is zero.

JP

-----Original Message-----
From: Evain, Jean-Pierre 
Sent: jeudi, 26. août 2010 08:57
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre; 'Pierre-Antoine Champin'
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

Yet in complement we could create the following structure:

Mediaresource ---Picture
              +--AVresource----videoTrack
                           +---audioTrack
              	

More complex, less complex? ;-)


-----Original Message-----
From: Evain, Jean-Pierre 
Sent: jeudi, 26. août 2010 07:37
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre; 'Pierre-Antoine Champin'
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

Possible alternative option for image, video, audio properties.

The original solution was trying to allow associating e.g. the bitrate property to the mediaresource but with a restriction on picture (and other similar cases for audio and video properties).

A solution is to associate the properties to the audio, video and picture subclasses. MediaResource would then inherit the properties. If we take the the example of the bitrate again, the bitrate would be associated to audio and video but not globally as a e.g. mpeg TS or mpeg4 stream.

frame width and height would be associated with a mutlirange to video and picture, etc.



________________________________________
De : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Date d'envoi : jeudi, 26. août 2010 07:01
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre; 'Pierre-Antoine Champin'
Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : RE : [mawg] action-249: Ontology rev 5 available & call for  competency   questions wrt. to actor - role part of the ontology

1/ Actually, I had another look at the RDF specification for the use of UnionOf. I don't think it applies here.

Let' take another example...

We have the property 'location' (where a resource can be accessed from, typically a URI).  A locator can be assocaited to a media resource, a fragment or a named fragment. Therefore it make sense to say that the property location is multirange. It will be used to generate valid clearly separated triples.  I can't see the use of UnionOf here. Or?

2/ In this case I personally strongly prefer saying that duration doesn't apply to picture (perfectly valid statement supported by the RDF syntax) instead of saying that picture is a subclass of a mediaresource with duration=0 (or audio subclass of framewidth=0 to which you should add and/or frameheight=0???)???  It is (IMHO) less elegant, less rigourous, and I am not even sure it is less complex ;-)

I truely can't see what is wrong with the proposed approach. This is semantically absolutely correct and exploits RDF statements in a valid way.


Best regards,
Jean-Pierre
________________________________________
De : public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] de la part de Evain, Jean-Pierre [evain@ebu.ch]
Date d'envoi : mercredi, 25. août 2010 17:18
À : 'Pierre-Antoine Champin'
Cc : Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : RE: [mawg] action-249: Ontology rev 5 available & call for  competency   questions wrt. to actor - role part of the ontology

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)
  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

-----------------------------------------
**************************************************
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 Thursday, 26 August 2010 07:19:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 August 2010 07:19:02 GMT