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: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:19:17 +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: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010D2E9A6815@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Dear Thierry,

Almost a week without additional comment. I would therefore suggest that this becomes the new version of our RDF ontology.

Thanks in advance for uploading it and replace the current published version.

Best regards, 

Jean-Pierre



-----Original Message-----
From: Evain, Jean-Pierre 
Sent: vendredi, 15. octobre 2010 06:19
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre; Tobias Bürger; Bailer, Werner
Cc: Davy Van Deursen; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version

Dear all,

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

Please check and feedback.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre


________________________________________
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.

Regards,

Jean-Pierre


________________________________________
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 that.

Best,

Tobias

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



-----------------------------------------
**************************************************
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 Thursday, 21 October 2010 13:20:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 21 October 2010 13:20:06 GMT