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

RE: RE : RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2010 10:07:01 +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: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010D37C7CF15@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
But an image could be a fragment covering the whole picture. This is the logic followed by MFWG whose fragment URI can access a media resource or a fragment.

JP

-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre-Antoine Champin [mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr] 
Sent: lundi, 6. décembre 2010 10:05
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: 'tobias@tobiasbuerger.com'; mcsuarez@fi.upm.es; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: RE : RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology

On 12/06/2010 08:01 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> Then the logic would be to move Image as a sub-class of fragment??

I don't think so: *some* images are not a fragment of anything, but "top 
level" media resources...

The ontology should allow for a resource to be both an Image and a 
MediaFragment, but this is already the case, since those classes are not 
disjoint. I think it is enough.

   pa

>
> JP
>
> ________________________________________
> De : Pierre-Antoine Champin [pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr]
> Date d'envoi : dimanche, 5. décembre 2010 22:35
> À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc : 'tobias@tobiasbuerger.com'; mcsuarez@fi.upm.es; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Objet : Re: RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology
>
> On 12/03/2010 01:18 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
>> 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.
>
> Media Fragment URIs allows for rectangular spatial fragments:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/#naming-space

>
>     pa
>
>>
>> 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 Monday, 6 December 2010 09:10:17 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 6 December 2010 09:10:18 GMT