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

Re: Using the Ontology for Media Resources in the Semantic Web

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:18:50 +0200
Message-ID: <4C8F5A1A.10200@eurecom.fr>
To: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>
CC: Media Annotation <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Yves,

[glad you jump on this thread ;-)]

> Sorry to jump on that particular example, but I don't think I've seen
> it mentioned before. I can understand why such a modelling can be
> appealing, but it is also potentially harmful. In your particular
> example, if I loaded all the quad data in any triple store and asked
> whether the audience is applauding (ASK WHERE
> {<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Audience>
> ex:humanActivity<http://dbpedia.org/resource/Applause>}), I would get
> "true" as a result, which can get quite confusing! However, it is only
> true in the context of that media fragment.

I agree and I voice the same concerns.

> I am a bit concerned by
> the fact that this relies too much on some Named Graphs semantics that
> hasn't been properly defined yet. Moreover, as you mention, there is
> no way of serialising all this information in a single document...

Yes, and we would not suggest to use Named Graphs before there is stable 
and consensual document that explains their syntax and semantics, 
something we don't have yet.

> Did you consider event-based annotations (which are properly
> understood and already deployed, e.g. by the BBC) instead?

Yes, naturally, but this is not the issue we are discussing here.

> If it was
> dropped in favor of a named graph approach, is there a document or an
> email thread detailing the reasons why?

Hum, I think you misunderstood the purpose of my example. Forget about 
the named graphs. The current Ontology for Media resources allows to 
attach only *simple* annotations to media or part of media. By simple, 
we meant either a plain literal (see this a free text annotation) or a 
URI (see this a single concept from a controlled vocabulary). The issue 
is how could we attach *complex* annotations to media or part of media? 
By complex, we meant a RDF graph of arbitrary complexity that could 
describe precisely a scene.

   RaphaŽl

-- 
RaphaŽl Troncy
EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 11:21:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 September 2010 11:21:29 GMT