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, 28 Oct 2010 21:02:03 +0200
To: Höffernig, Martin <Martin.Hoeffernig@joanneum.at>, 'Chris Poppe' <Chris.Poppe@UGent.be>
CC: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010D2E9DD59F@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Dear Martin,

Point 1 taken

Point 2 - using annotation, mmh, not super elegant but could do in a sense. Let me think about the rating author giving different values to different resources - it is relevant but is it we can't do it?

Let's see.

About the same problem for targetAudience, some terms may have different semantics accroding to the scheme / country or system ofr e.g. games vs. video. Here I believe the approach is right. Actually a query may allow you to access directly the value or the property targetAudience (value/expression/code)

Regards, JP

De : Höffernig, Martin [Martin.Hoeffernig@joanneum.at]
Date d'envoi : jeudi, 28. octobre 2010 14:27
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre; 'Chris Poppe'
Cc : Tobias Bürger; Bailer, Werner; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : AW: ma-ont RDF latest version

Dear Jean-Pierre, Chris and all,

just a few comments regarding the current ontology spec:

Since TargetAudienceAuthority is no longer a sub class of Contributor the object property targetAudienceAuthorityIs shouldn't be a sub property of contributorIs as well. Leaving this sub property relation would infer that the domain of property targetAudienceAuthorityIs is Contributor, since Contributor is domain of property contributorIs.

As Chris wrote there is no direct connection between a MediaResource and the value of TargetAudienceAuthority, the same problem/pattern exists between a MediaResource and a given rating value. Since a rating value is directly related to a RatingProvider (via data property ratingValue), it is not expressible that the same RatingProvider rates different MediaResources (or MediaFragments) including different rating values.
I propose to directly connect a rating value to a MediaResource and annotate this rating value with additional information (RatingProvider, etc.). A new class RatingValue would be necessary for this purpose.


-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Evain, Jean-Pierre
Gesendet: Montag, 25. Oktober 2010 10:11
An: 'Chris Poppe'
Cc: Tobias Bürger; Bailer, Werner; Davy Van Deursen; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Betreff: RE: ma-ont RDF latest version


As below and attached... Hope this answers the questions and needs.



-----Original Message-----
From: Chris Poppe [mailto:Chris.Poppe@UGent.be]
Sent: dimanche, 24. octobre 2010 21:10
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: Tobias Bürger; Bailer, Werner; Davy Van Deursen; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: ma-ont RDF latest version

Dear all,

congrats with the excellent work, seems like we have a real ontology instead of a property list now :).

Some remarks:
In the ontology specification the location property is defined as the location where a resource is created, developed, recorded, or otherwise authored. Currently the ontology scheme only has a depictedLocation. So maybe a ObjectProperty createLocation could be added? I guess the depicted location is not in the ontology specification since it could be described using the "description"

JPE: Although a location could be described in 'description', it is the function of location to do this also as a linked data hook (and I would says it would make more sense to insist on what is shown that where it was developed?!?!).
But how? It seems the semantics
gives a list of properties. We could have a general property like 'hasRelatedLocation'
(which would be as vague as the way it is currently defined) as a placeholder to Develop a series of subproperties: depicted, created, developed, etc.

Could isImageRelatedTo be made a subproperty of isRelatedTo?

JPE: No, not the same domain. But hasRelatedImage could be.

Could the link between the Data Property relation and the Object Peropty isRelatedTo be formalized somehow? E.g., if a MediaResource is used as the range of a isRelatedTo objectproperty, it implies that a relation data property should exist with the URI of that MediaResource?

JPE: Good point.  Actually, if the 'relation' is e.g. 'source' (the source from which the mediaresource is derived) , then 'source should be a subproperty of isRelatedTo. I have used this as an example and removed the 'relation' dataproperty.

There is no direct connection between a MediaResource and the TargetAudienceAuthority.
Do I interpret it correct that to express that an organization has given a classification "adult" to a mediaResource, we express this as:
a_MediaResource hasContributor a_TargetAudienceAuthority; a_TargetAudienceAuthority targetAudienceAuthorityIs a_Organization; a_TargetAudienceAuthority targetAudience "Adult";

JPE: 1/ Yes, a few relations to some contributors were missing inc. targetAudienceAuthority 2/ Yes again, the only way to express different targetAudience e.g. using different target audience schemes was to use the trick of linking the property to the authority. BTW, I would suggest the authority is no longer a subclass of contributor -> agree?

I think there is something missing to state that a MediaFragment is a fragment of a specific MediaResource (maybe isFragmentOf and hasFragment Object properties).

JPE: Yes

Maybe it's better to remove the namedFragmentUri data property and create a fragmentName data property (like the fragmentRole property).
This way a namedFragment is a MediaFragment with a fragmentName and the URI can be retrieved through fragmentUri.

JPE: That's what I suggested in a previous mail. Actually I corrected the existing mediaFragmentName data property into fragmentName.
I have now kept only locator and renamed fragmentUri into fragmentLocator (or we change locator in mediaResourceUri :-).

Kind regards,

Quoting "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@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
> **************************************************

Ghent University - Multimedia Lab
Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41
B-9000 Ghent, Belgium

tel: +32 9 264 89 17
fax: +32 9 264 35 94
e-mail: Chris.Poppe@ugent.be

URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be
Received on Thursday, 28 October 2010 19:03:02 UTC

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