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 14:41:27 +0100
To: "'mcsuarez@fi.upm.es'" <mcsuarez@fi.upm.es>
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>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010D37C7CF00@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Dear Mari-Carmen,

A segment is just another name for fragment. I can't see the need to have a sub-class Segment also because having segment at the same semantic level as Track is problematic. But we can mention that fragment is equivalent to segment or part in other ontologies.

The same for frame. The only way to address a frame is to rely on the locator using the MFWG URI. Otherwise we have a duration we could set to '1' (frame, although the unit for duration is 'double' as defined in the ontology) and we are missing a start time for the fragment. (we have addressed these issues in EBUCore with different possible time reference formats for start and duration). In other words if you have a URI with a start time and duration 1 frame, then you have a fragment that is a frame, by definition and it would be the same if we had a start time and duration as properties for the fragment.

As a result of the abovem I would not say that Video Frame is a synonym to videoTrack.

An image could be a key frame, as I said, but eventually can be represented as a "frame" fragment.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre

-----Original Message-----
From: Mari Carmen Suárez de Figueroa Baonza [mailto:mcsuarez@fi.upm.es] 
Sent: vendredi, 3. décembre 2010 12:21
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: 'tobias@tobiasbuerger.com'; Pierre-Antoine Champin; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology

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 13:44:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 3 December 2010 13:45:22 GMT