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

Re: [LC Comment ONT]

From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 22:58:51 +0900
Message-ID: <AANLkTimKnQS7lZatnI0qffhtXO6lVDvrxT3R7OocnWyg@mail.gmail.com>
To: JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>
Cc: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Oh, I see, sorry for my confusing.

That seems good comments, I will keep that comment in mind and input for our
revision work later.

Thanks,

Daniel



On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 10:08 PM, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA
<jmcf@tid.es>wrote:

>  thank you for your responses
>
>
>
> If you go with the current approach you should clearly indicate that the
> mappings you are covering on your document are only informative. One
> suggestion I would be in favour of would be to create one Recommendation
> with the Ontology (the normative staff) and one W3C Note with the mappings
> identified. That will make things clearer while at the same time will allow
> to evolve the Rec and the mappings independently. Also will make the Rec
> thinner and easier to be read.
>
>
>
> best regards
>
>
>
> *De:* Veronique Malaise [mailto:vmalaise@few.vu.nl]
> *Enviado el:* lunes, 14 de junio de 2010 14:52
> *Para:* Daniel Park
> *CC:* JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA
> *Asunto:* Re: [LC Comment ONT]
>
>
>
>
>
> On Jun 14, 2010, at 1:45 PM, Daniel Park wrote:
>
>
>
>  Obviously, we are targeting for W3C Recommendation.
>
>
>
> It seems a trade-off issue. Light version can be deployed quickly even if
> its mapping does not cover all of properties. That's why it's named as
> (Media Ontology 1.0). 2.0 and 3.0 will be able to expand mappings as wide as
> your expectation.
>
>
>
> I think that the comment was about the fact that the mappings are
> recommended to be properties from the SKOS vocabulary, which is less formal
> than properties defined in OWL, hence the lightweight. Several projects in
> the Cultural Heritage world have opted for the less formal SKOS vocabulary,
> which is a W3C recommendation itself, several other projects, like the New
> York Times Topics mappings to DBpedia and GeoNames initiative, have
> discussed at length which option to choose from. I personaly am in favor of
> not over-committing the Media Ontology with strong mappings, particularly
> because of the difference of semantics (and syntax) between the elements of
> the different vocabularies/schemas we are seeking a mapping for. But I would
> of course be very interested to have Mr Cantera's opinion about the troubles
> I might not have foreseen? The Media Ontology describes the types of
> mappings that can be done, but we do only implementation examples, the text
> and mapping tables can be used to create a more constrained mapping if a
> user needs one. Maybe there was a misunderstanding on this level?
>
>
>
> Best regards
>
> Véronique
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
>
> --
> Soohong Daniel Park
> http://www.soohongp.com
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 7:32 PM, JOSE MANUEL CANTERA FONSECA <jmcf@tid.es>
> wrote:
>
> Is this specification going to be a Rec or a Note?
>
>
>
> because if this is going to be a Rec, you might be in trouble with your
> lightweight approach to mappings
>
>
>
> best
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
Soohong Daniel Park
http://www.soohongp.com
Received on Monday, 14 June 2010 13:59:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 14 June 2010 13:59:20 GMT