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

RE: RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Fri, 3 Dec 2010 13:18:18 +0100
To: 'Pierre-Antoine Champin' <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
CC: "'tobias@tobiasbuerger.com'" <tobias@tobiasbuerger.com>, "mcsuarez@fi.upm.es" <mcsuarez@fi.upm.es>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010D37C7CEFB@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
I was thinking of this but I am not sure that we have any mechanism to point to a fragment / region within a picture -> at least not covered by the ontology and I am not even sure about what MFWG has done, which would allow their URI to point to one.

Regards,

Jean-Pierre


-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre-Antoine Champin [mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr] 
Sent: vendredi, 3. décembre 2010 12:29
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: 'tobias@tobiasbuerger.com'; mcsuarez@fi.upm.es; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology

On 12/03/2010 09:51 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> 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).

ehr... an Image can have fragments, namely spatial fragments.

In general, to respond Mari's comment about constraining hasFragment is 
a two side coins... By constraining, we may indeed detect some 
inconsistencies... On the other hand, we might limit the use of the 
ontology in situations that we do not envision right now.

So I would be in favor of leaving the domain and range as is. A specific 
application is of course free to put additional constraints to fulfill 
its needs.

This is a personal opinion though; not necessarily the one of the RDF 
Taskforce or the WG...

   pa


>
> 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

>

Received on Friday, 3 December 2010 12:21:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 December 2010 12:21:36 GMT