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

RE: [mawg] action-249: Ontology Rev. 7 available

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:09:20 +0200
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, "'Bailer, Werner'" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CEEB7F1DC@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
I also forgot to mention (I am doing 10 things at the same time and rushing for IBC)...

Another example in our ontology is 'fragment'.

We discussed with Tobias whether it was relevant to have as a subclass of mediaResource.  I can agree that it should not because it is actually a URI that a mediaFragment describes, not the resource itself.

On the other hand, to the question is a publisher or a creator or an actor ... a contributor, the response is always yes, which makes them apply as a subclass of contributor.  To the question is a contributor always a publisher or an actor or a creator: the answer is no.  I am not blaming mpeg, it was done a long time ago although the error may have come from early attempts to automatically transform xml into rdf.

JP

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre
Sent: mercredi, 8. septembre 2010 16:02
To: 'Bailer, Werner'; Tobias Bürger
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: [mawg] action-249: Ontology Rev. 7 available

By the way I fail to see how the current owl file is different from our property definitions (this without saying that I feel some vagueness in the notions of class vs. Property in your comment - with all due respect Werner ;-)

JP

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bailer, Werner
Sent: mercredi, 8. septembre 2010 15:41
To: Tobias Bürger
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: AW: [mawg] action-249: Ontology Rev. 7 available

Dear Tobias,

thanks for this draft. I have the following comments:

- As I posted to the list earlier, I wonder why Creator is a subclass of Contributor. In our list of properties they are disjoint, as in some other formats (e.g. EBUCore), in MPEG-7 it's even the other way round (Creator being the superclass): I'm in favour of keeping them separate, as I think it's confusing to model that differently than in our properties definition.

- We should be careful to align the ontology with our list of properties, e.g. Actor is useful as an example, but not defined in our list of properties, thus it should not be included in the official ontology that we publish.

Best regards,
Werner

________________________________________
Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] im Auftrag von Tobias Bürger [tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. September 2010 14:28
An: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Betreff: [mawg] action-249: Ontology Rev. 7 available

  Dear all,

after some discussions in the previous week, we made an update to the
ontology which you can find at
http://www.salzburgresearch.at/~tbuerger/ma-ont-rev7.owl

What we changed:
We changed the things to which Pierre-Antoine referred to in his
comments 1 and 3 in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Aug/0027.html,
that is, we fixed the properties with multiple domain declarations
(e.g., title and locator) and we adapted the Contributor subclass hierarchy.

Furthermore we added a new property isMadeOf to express that a
MediaResource can be made of Audio - and/or VideoTracks.

I would like to note that we did not change the modelling wrt. to the
restricted use of some properties (.e.g duration does not apply to
Images) as both discussed options have their drawbacks in the one or
other direction (e.g. when introducing new subclasses of MediaResource
or when adding new properties whose use shall be restricted somehow).
The same arguments as the ones from Pierre-Antoine against the current
solutions can be made with his proposal because what, for instance,

ma:Image rdfs:subClassOf ma:MediaResource, [
     a owl:Restriction ;
     owl:onProperty ma:duration ;
     owl:cardinality 0
   ]

tells us is, that Images are MediaResources which do not have a duration
property. This gives imho also gives a wrong impression.

I had a discussion internally in my group and without telling them what
options are being discussed at the moment, most of them favored the
modelling which we currently have in our version.
Both aspects lead me to the conclusion that I keep this part of our
ontology as it is for now. Unless new arguments or majority votes
against our current modelling pop up :-)

Any feedback is again highly welcome!

@Thierry: If there are no objections you might publish this draft in the
W3C web space.

Best regards,

Tobias

--
================================================================
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 Wednesday, 8 September 2010 14:10:00 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 8 September 2010 14:10:01 GMT