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

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

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 12:27:52 +0200
Message-ID: <AANLkTi=ey2nm6arye=wP3cqz+mzPX0Xp3BkV0pe4Bbtn@mail.gmail.com>
To: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hello Tobias,

I don't have a position on this yet, but I want to mention that the
alignment between the API document and the flat list of properties is quite
close. For each property on the flat list there is a getter method. The
situation is different for the Media Ontology and the API: there is no
getAgent method in the API document. So it seems to me that whatever
approach we choose, if we have a disalignment between the flat list and the
Media Ontology, we will also have a disalignment of the latter to the API.

(I haven't followed this discussion closely so far, so bear with me if that
point has been mentioned before)

Regards, Felix


2010/9/14 Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>

>  Dear all,
>
> let me step into this discussion.
>
> First of all, I guess the fact that we decided that the Media Ontology as
> it is defined in our document is a flat list of properties should not
> restrict ourselves in building an ontology (using an ontology definition
> language) that models the universe captured by the Media Ontology more
> precisely (meaning with more precise semantics). Having said that, I am
> strongly in favor of defining creator to be a subclass of contributor if we
> think the semantics of this relationship hold. For me a creator of a media
> resource is always a contributor and thus this relationship holds in my
> opinion. The same is true for the other roles (i.e. actor and publisher also
> are some type of contributor).
>
> There was also the issue about Actor. If I recall correctly, then we said
> in one meeting that we would like to have Actor as a class (F2F in Vienna).
> But if the group thinks we should mark it as an extension, we can do that.
>
> With respect to some properties/concepts we introduced in addition to the
> core MAWG properties (defined in the document), they do in most cases define
> the relations between concepts defined in our ontology more clearly and make
> them explicit; such as isMadeOf to be able to relate tracks to
> MediaResources. Also we introduced Agents (Persons or Organisations) to be
> able to express who can be creator or contributor of a resource. I
> definitely would keep this. If the group decides to remove all of this, then
> we end up with a flat list of properties again (without defining any precise
> semantics) and this is not what we want at this point, I'd say.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tobias
>
> Am 08.09.2010 17:13, schrieb Evain, Jean-Pierre:
>
> Dear Werner,
>>
>> For the choice of the classes, it was the MAWG choice to have actor. And
>> to be consistent actor is a class and not a property.
>>
>> I wouldn't undermine the MAWG ontology e.g. because mpeg did some wrong
>> ontological assumptions. Look at the questiosn I asked and must be asked to
>> decide if classes are sub-classes and o what. The current classification is
>> natural.
>>
>> Definitely I beleiev being able to factor queries is clearly and
>> advantage. this is also one of the reasons why we introduced the notion of
>> agent.
>>
>> Best regards,
>>
>> Jean-pierre
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> De : Bailer, Werner [werner.bailer@joanneum.at]
>> Date d'envoi : mercredi, 8. septembre 2010 16:26
>> À : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Tobias Bürger
>> Cc : public-media-annotation@w3.org
>> Objet : AW: [mawg] action-249: Ontology Rev. 7 available
>>
>> Dear Jean-Pierre,
>>
>> then main difference is that there is a class Actor in the ontology, but
>> no corresponding property in our table (meaning property in the sense of
>>  "core property" in our specification, which does not necessarily mean that
>> this is modelled as a property in the ontology). Actor is one of the many
>> possible subtypes of contributor, which we decided not to exhaustively list
>> in our spec.
>>
>> Concerning the question of contributor and creator, I think it should be
>> as much aligned with our list of core properties as possible, as well as the
>> formats we support in the mapping table. And as far as I see from the
>> mapping tables, some formats have them separate, one uses Creator as the
>> superclass, some make no distinction. So whatever we choose, it will not be
>> perfectly aligned with any of the formats. But I do not see a reason for
>> defining creator as a subclass of contributor, rather for keeping them
>> separate.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Werner
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> Von: Evain, Jean-Pierre [evain@ebu.ch]
>> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. September 2010 16:02
>> An: Bailer, Werner; Tobias Bürger
>> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
>> Betreff: 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
>>
>
> --
>  ================================================================
> 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 Tuesday, 14 September 2010 10:28:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 September 2010 10:28:29 GMT