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: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:18:59 +0200
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
CC: Davy Van Deursen <davy.vandeursen@ugent.be>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010D2E048CF4@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Dear all,

this is the new version with MediaFragment as a subclass of MediaResource, validated as OWL-DL.

Please check and feedback.

Best regards,


De : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Date d'envoi : vendredi, 15. octobre 2010 02:09
À : Tobias Bürger; Bailer, Werner
Cc : Davy Van Deursen; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : RE : ma-ont RDF latest version

Thanks Tobias, all,

There seem to be concensus. I'll work on a new version.

I was thinking about namedFragment. Although the MFWG makes this disctinction, I wonder if we need to in MAWG as we would have a property 'name' that be be documented or not.  Then the URI attributed to the fragment would use an MFWG format or another, accordingly.

I hope I'll find 5 minutes to do this today during my various meetings.



De : Tobias Bürger [tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at]
Date d'envoi : jeudi, 14. octobre 2010 18:20
À : Bailer, Werner
Cc : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Davy Van Deursen; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : Re: ma-ont RDF latest version

  Dear all,

given the definition of MF cited below, it makes sense to model MF like



Am 14.10.2010 15:34, schrieb Bailer, Werner:
> Dear Davy, Jean-Pierre, all,
> I agree with the proposal that a media fragment is a subclass of media resource.
> Actually, this a clean way of modeling it, as we anyway couldn't prevent someone from expressing that by using a MFURI as the URI of a media resource.
> Best regards,
> Werner
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
>> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre
>> Sent: Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2010 15:25
>> To: Davy Van Deursen
>> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
>> Subject: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version
>> Hi Davy,
>> Thank for summarsing the semantics, that will help me answering the
>> question... (I hope :-)
>> [[ Therefore, we should first look at the definition of a media
>> resource [1] and I believe that a media fragment
>> falls under that definition (if not, please clarify why not):
>> " A media resource is any physical or logical Resource that can be
>> identified using a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as defined
>> by [RFC 3986]) , which has or is related to one or more media content
>> types."  More specifically, a media fragment is a physical
>> resource, with a media content type (i.e., the same as its parent
>> resource) and can be identified using a URI (i.e., a Media
>> Fragments URI).]]
>> This is effectively the key question and I would inviote the whole MAWG
>> to consider this question.
>> My first intention would have been to have media fragment as a subclass
>> of media resource composed of audio and video tracks. If we all adopt
>> and recognise more specifically that a fragment is a media resource
>> which is iodentified by a MFURI I am happy with this but the group
>> needs to confirm what the mediaFragment is. Then we could name
>> (namedFragment, itself a subclass of fragment) and keyword a fragment
>> and give him a URI. That would be 'clean'.
>> Then  if the question arises of whether a media fragment is a subclass
>> of media resource, I would answer that any media resource is an atomic
>> media fragment.
>> In other words, I personally can agree with what you suggest but would
>> like to hear from the group.
>> Tobias and team, what do you think?
>> 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
>> **************************************************

Dr. Tobias Bürger         Knowledge and Media Technologies Group
Salzburg Research                           FON +43.662.2288-415
Forschungsgesellschaft                      FAX +43.662.2288-222
Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/III   tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at
A-5020 Salzburg | AUSTRIA         http://www.salzburgresearch.at

Received on Friday, 15 October 2010 04:21:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:39 UTC