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

Re: concern about the definition of ontology in the ontology document

From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:26:09 +0200
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <FD8988A2-8790-4B2A-A6AF-D8251E8BA91A@few.vu.nl>
To: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Yes, sounds good :)

Véronique

On May 18, 2010, at 2:13 PM, 이원석 wrote:

> Hi. Veronique.
> Thanks for valuable input :)
> How about below sentence? I just revised a little bit.
>
> "In this recommendation, the vocabulary in question is the list of  
> core properties (relationships) defined in the ma namespace, and the  
> machine-readable format is not specified here: the recommendation  
> provides a simple text description and definition of the  
> relationships. An implementation of the vocabulary in RDF [1] will  
> be provided as an example in the appendix of this specification.  
> Implementations in different formats are nevertheless allowed."
>
> Best regards,
> Wonsuk.
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Veronique Malaise
> Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:54 PM
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: concern about the definition of ontology in the ontology  
> document
>
>
> Dear all,
>
> I think that readers of the ontology document
> http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html
> might have some troubles making the link between the (very correct)
> definition of what an ontology is, in section 2, and the proposal of
> the group (a list of properties defined in prose, not in a formal
> language). The text of the ontology document is copied below, followed
> by a line I propose to add to make the link clearer. What do you  
> think?
>
> Best regards,
> Véronique
>
> "An ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared, machine-
> readable vocabulary and meanings, in the form of various entities and
> relationships between them, to describe knowledge about the contents
> of one or more related subject domains throughout the life cycle of
> its existence. These entities and relationships are used to represent
> knowledge in the set of related subject domains. Formal refers to the
> fact that the ontology should be representable in a formal grammar.
> Explicit means that the entities and relationships used, and the
> constraints on their use, are precisely and unambiguously defined in a
> declarative language suitable for knowledge representation. Shared
> means that all users of an ontology will represent a concept using the
> same or equivalent set of entities and relationships. Subject domain
> refers to the content of the universe of discourse being represented
> by the ontology"
>
> I propose to add something like:
> "In this recommendation, the vocabulary in question is the list of
> core properties (relationships) defined in the ma namespace, and the
> machine-readable format is not specified here: the recommendation
> provides a simple text description and definition of the
> relationships. An implementation of the vocabulary in RDF [1] has been
> developed in the MAWG RDF? task force [2]. Implementations in
> different formats are nevertheless allowed.
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/RDF/
> [2]ref to the URL of the document of the modeling task force
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 12:27:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 18 May 2010 12:27:43 GMT