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

RE : ma-ont RDF latest version

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:32:39 +0200
To: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010D2240FA62@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Hi Davy,

interesting question indeed.

We had a similar discussion with Tobias. Tobias convince not ot have fragment as a subclass of mediaResource (I know not exactly your point yet) but I found a reason to accept it...

If I ask myself is a videoTrack or an audioTrack a media Resource, I believe it is true as they vould be played independently and correspond to an audio / video instance and this is why I don't have a problem with having them as subclasses of mediaResource.

On the other hand a mediaFragment (for me) is not a fragment in the sens e.g. segment but it is a URI pointing to such a fragment or sequence. This is different from being an audio track or video track. For me these are in essence different and I would have difficulties putting the tracks as subclasses of mediaFragment.

But this maybe first a semantic issue needing clarification before a decision is made.

Do you see what I mean?

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre 

________________________________________
De : Davy Van Deursen [davy.vandeursen@ugent.be]
Date d'envoi : mercredi, 13. octobre 2010 16:12
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc : public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : RE: ma-ont RDF latest version

Hi Jean-Pierre, all,

a question regarding the way tracks are modeled in the ontology: why are ma:VideoTrack and ma:AudioTrack subclasses of
ma:MediaResource? Given the fact that the track axis is one of the media fragment axes [1], I would expect that ma:VideoTrack and
ma:AudioTrack are subclass of ma:MediaFragment. The property ma:isMadeOf  would then become subproperty of ma:hasFragment.

Best regards,

Davy

[1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Fragments/WD-media-fragments-spec/#naming-track

--
Davy Van Deursen

Ghent University - IBBT
Department of Electronics and Information Systems - Multimedia Lab
URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/dvdeurse

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Sent: woensdag 13 oktober 2010 8:45
> To: Höffernig, Martin; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version
>
> HI Martin,
>
> all comments make sense.  Disjoints were used in earlier versions but then were unduly removed during some debugging tasks.
>
> Here is a new version with all your suggestions implemented (or so I believe :-). Please have a look and feedback.
>
> Best regards from Guangzhou,
>
> Jean-Pierre
>
>
>
> ________________________________________
> De : public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] de la part de Höffernig, Martin
> [Martin.Hoeffernig@joanneum.at] Date d'envoi : mardi, 12. octobre 2010 08:37 À : public-media-annotation@w3.org Objet : Re: ma-
> ont RDF latest version
>
> Hi all,
>
> here are my comments concerning the latest verson of ma-ont:
>
> Shouldn't the top level classes (Concept, Agent, Collection, Contributor, Location, MediaFragment, MediaResource) be disjoint or
> overlapping?
> Since these classes are not overlapping, they should be marked as disjoint.
>
> All subclasses of class Contributer - execpt class RatingProvider - have property restrictions (e.g. Actor actorIs some Person).
> Though an appropriate property - ratingProviderIs - is available.
>
> Since now only some Contributor subclasses are described using property restrictions. Is there the intention to add property
> restrictions to the remaining classes as well?
>
> The range definition for property duration is "MediaResource and not Image".
> An alternative way to describe this would be "AudioTrack or VideoTrack" (without negation) which could be easier to
> understand/interpret.
> The range definition for properties frameHeight, frameRate, frameWidth and samplingRate can be rephrased in a similar fashion.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 05. Oktober 2010 11:39
> An: 'tmichel@w3.org'
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Betreff: RE: ma-ont RDF latest version
>
> As requested...
>
> Regards, JP
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thierry MICHEL [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
> Sent: mardi, 5. octobre 2010 11:31
> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: ma-ont RDF latest version
>
> Could you add inside the file, in a comment,  a version number (like
> R12) and a date. It will ease when inserting the file into the Ont spec to track the version.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Thierry
>
> Le 05/10/2010 09:22, Evain, Jean-Pierre a écrit :
> > Thanks Thierry.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Thierry MICHEL [mailto:tmichel@w3.org]
> > Sent: lundi, 4. octobre 2010 22:16
> > To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
> > Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: ma-ont RDF latest version
> >
> > Now Linked from the MA WG home page
> >
> > Le 04/10/2010 14:27, Evain, Jean-Pierre a écrit :
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> Please find attached the latest RDF version of the ontology. It is usually Tobias who post this on the reflector but he has
problems
> with one of his servers and couldn't post the document before leaving. He therefore asked me to do it.
> >>
> >> Of course this will likely need to be updated as the ontology integrates all comments received.
> >>
> >> Some sub-properties are there to illustrate the implementation of some examples given in the semantics.
> >>
> >> Best regards, Jean-Pierre
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > -----------------------------------------
> > **************************************************
> > 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
> > **************************************************
> >
Received on Wednesday, 13 October 2010 14:33:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 13 October 2010 14:33:21 GMT