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

Re: RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology

From: Mari Carmen Suárez de Figueroa Baonza <mcsuarez@fi.upm.es>
Date: Fri, 03 Dec 2010 12:21:22 +0100
Message-ID: <4CF8D2B2.9000204@fi.upm.es>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
CC: "'tobias@tobiasbuerger.com'" <tobias@tobiasbuerger.com>, Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Dear Jean-Pierre and Tobias,

thank you very much for your quick response and clarifications.

I would say that to include such kind of restriction in the relation 
'isFragmentOf' is beneficial for the ontology in order to avoid possible 
mistakes in a knowledge base.

With respecto to your comments,
- " - a frame could be a MediaFragment with a duration of one frame and 
if you wnat to address only the farme as a video frame then the 
component is the VideoTrack. We could have segment and frame as possible 
media fragments in the definition". I would say that include segment and 
frame as subclasses as media fragments could be a good idea; if the 
final decision is not to include them, I would include (at least) 'video 
frame' as a synonim of 'video track'.
- "an image could also be a key frame". In this case I would also 
include this information explicitly in the ontology.
- "as mentioned above captioning is the same as subtitle and this should 
be mentioned in the definitions if you think it helps.". Yes, I think 
this kind of explicity information about synonyms is useful for the 
understanding and use of the ontology.

Again thank you very much for your responses. I hope my comments can 
help in the revisions of the ontology.

Best Regards,

Mari Carmen.


Evain, Jean-Pierre escribió:
>
> Dear Mari-Carmen,
>
> Based on the latest version (thanks Tobias ;-), we could effectively 
> be more restrictive and say that MediaFragment isFragmentOf 
> (MediaResource and not Image).
>
> If I have covered most of your questions in my two mails then I’ll 
> work on a version 26. Waiting for confirmation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jean-Pierre
>
> *From:* tobias.buerger@gmail.com [mailto:tobias.buerger@gmail.com] *On 
> Behalf Of *Tobias Bürger
> *Sent:* vendredi, 3. décembre 2010 08:33
> *To:* Evain, Jean-Pierre
> *Cc:* mcsuarez@fi.upm.es; Pierre-Antoine Champin; 
> public-media-annotation@w3.org
> *Subject:* Re: RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology
>
> Dear Mari-Carmen,
>
> thanks also from my side for the feedback and thanks to Jean-Pierre 
> for answering your questions!
>
> What I wanted to add is, that you, Mari-Carmen, looked at an old 
> version of the ontology. The most recent version was sent around with 
> this mail: 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0130.html
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tobias
>
> 2010/12/2 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch <mailto:evain@ebu.ch>>
>
> Hello Mari-Carmen,
>
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> I'll first try to summarise what the intention was and then we'll come 
> back to your specific points.
>
> The idea of the current class model is:
>
> A MediaResource can be one or more images and /or one or more AV 
> MediaFragment.
>
> By definition, in the model, an AV MediaResource is made of at least 
> one MediaFragment.
>
> A MediaFragment is the equivalent of a segment or in some standards 
> like NewsML-g2 or EBUCore, a part.
>
> A MediaFragment is composed of one or more media components organised 
> in tracks (separate tracks for captioning/subtitling or signing if 
> provided in a separate file): audio, video, captioning/subtitling, 
> signing. There could be other types of tracks like a 'data' track, etc.
>
> Addressing some of your remarks:
>
> - a frame could be a MediaFragment with a duration of one frame and if 
> you wnat to address only the farme as a video frame then the component 
> is the VideoTrack. We could have segment and frame as possible media 
> fragments in the definition
> - an image could also be a key frame
> - as mentioned above captioning is the same as subtitle and this 
> should be mentioned in the definitions if you think it helps.
>
> For isFragmentOf, I'll come back to you tomorrow.
>
> It took me 48 hours to return from Paris making me a climatic refugee 
> going from airports to train stations. That's exactly when my main PC 
> decide to crash and doesn't let me log in. I am working from a backup 
> PC on which I don't have the last version of the ontology. SHould be 
> fine by tomorrow ;-)
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jean-Pierre
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> De : Mari Carmen Suárez de Figueroa Baonza [mcsuarez@fi.upm.es 
> <mailto:mcsuarez@fi.upm.es>]
> Date d'envoi : jeudi, 2. décembre 2010 17:17
> À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc : Pierre-Antoine Champin; public-media-annotation@w3.org 
> <mailto:public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> Objet : Re: Next iteration of the RDF ontology
>
>
> Dear Jean-Pierre and all,
>
> I took a look to the ontology you sent on 15th November, and I have
> a pair of comments (maybe you have already discussed about them, sorry
> if this is the case).
>
> - With respect to the Track class and its subclasses (AudioTrack,
> Captioning, VideoTrack), I would suggest to complete the comments for
> the subclasses, because as it is know is difficult to understand the
> meaning of them (for a newcomer). In this context I have a pair of
> doubts: is it AudioTrack the same as Segment? is it VideoTrack the same
> as Frame? is it Captioning the same as Subtitle? If so, could you
> consider to include these labels as synonyms of the existing classes?
>
> - In the case of the relation called "isFragmentOf" (domain:
> MediaFragment; range: MediaResource), I was wondering if it would not be
> better to extend/modified the current modelling in order to avoid
> possible inconsistences (such as "an image having as a fragment a video
> track and an audio track").
>
> Thank you very much in advance. Best Regards,
>
> Mari Carmen.
>
> Evain, Jean-Pierre escribió:
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Following the changes made during TPAC, we have been working with 
> Pierre-Antoine and Tobias to improve the ontology and the mapping to 
> the abstract ontology.
> >
> > The result of this work is attached. We will suggest a few changes 
> to the abstract ontology to improve the logic of the semantic (date 
> property structure) and also to improve interoperability with the MFWG 
> specification (improving the mediaFragment structure).
> >
> > You will also notice that we are now more systematic in our approach 
> illustrated by the removal of the contributor class hierarchy (which 
> was there to mimic the abstract structure and help adoption) now 
> implemented through properties.
> >
> > Pierre Antoine will review the mapping table and we'll update the 
> RDF according to the decisions we make tomorrow.
> >
> > Cheers, JP (also on behalf on Tobias and Pierre-Antoine)
> >
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > **************************************************
> > 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
> > **************************************************
> >
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------
> Dr. Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa
> Teaching Assistant
>
> Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)
>
> Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
> Facultad de Informática
> Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
> Campus de Montegancedo, s/n
> Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid
>
> Phone: (+34) 91 336 36 72
> Fax: (+34) 91 352 48 19
> e-mail: mcsuarez@fi.upm.es <mailto:mcsuarez@fi.upm.es>
> Office: 3205
> ----------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> ___________________________________
> Dr. Tobias Bürger
> http://www.tobiasbuerger.com
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------
 Dr. Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa
 Teaching Assistant 

 Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)

 Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
 Facultad de Informática
 Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
 Campus de Montegancedo, s/n
 Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid

 Phone: (+34) 91 336 36 72
 Fax: (+34) 91 352 48 19
 e-mail: mcsuarez@fi.upm.es
 Office: 3205			
----------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 11:06:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 December 2010 11:06:24 GMT