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

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

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:11:00 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTimspc6UsRG0Z-prmfEh6Oe-DeqdV8Y8ZyC0=zq5@mail.gmail.com>
To: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Cc: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, Media Annotation <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

> Yves: how would you see/write an annotation with an event model?

An example of that is the tracklist/segment information we publish as
RDF on http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes. An example from this morning
is http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tpnk4.rdf

> Do you mean
> replacing/doubling the ma:relation property by x:hasEvent, x:hasTime,
> x:hasPlace etc? How could we deal with descriptions involving multiple
> places, times and events if we do not integrate them in a generic "Event"
> container, that would bring us back to the first issue: how to link a
> complete graph as an object for a property...

Oh, what I meant was just to, instead of reifying this information a
whole graph (which has issues, as pointed out earlier), attaching all
that to something like a po:Segment resource. So on a media, you can
define a number of segments, using subclasses of something like
po:Segment (essentially, you just classify parts of the media):
:ApplauseEvent, :LaughterEvent, :AChordPlayedEvent etc.

Does that make sense? We use a similar modelling in the Music Ontology
as well, and there are a number of examples on the wiki, e.g.


> Best,
> Vťronique
> On Sep 14, 2010, at 1:55 PM, RaphaŽl Troncy wrote:
>>> I am not sure I understand, indeed - what is the status of that the
>>> examples you mentioned above, then?
>> It has no status at all. Forget about this example. Its only purpose is to
>> illustrate an issue.
>>> Is that something that is likely
>>> to make it in the final document?
>> Absolutely not. The current situation is that "complex" annotations in the
>> sense I have explained are not possible so there is no reason to have such
>> an example.
>>> If you want to tackle the "complex
>>> media annotation" scenario, and want to stick to your ma:relation
>>> framework, then you will have to use Named Graphs in the way you
>>> described it above, which we are apparently both concerned about?
>> We come back to the original purpose of my email when I made up this
>> example. Intuitively, I could only think of this "named graph" solution to
>> fulfill this use case but I asked the SW Coordination Group if there were
>> other ways the WG could not think about since the "named graph" does not
>> bring satisfaction.
>>> Pointing to a SKOS concept doesn't cause any issues, but pointing to a
>>> Named Graphs relies on some semantics that isn't quite there yet.
>> Yes, we know that.
>>> Therefore, I am guessing there are only two possible outcomes 1)
>>> Dropping the "complex" annotations from the scope of the final
>>> document or 2) Move to another scheme than the ma:relation one for
>>> complex annotations, which was what I pointed at in my previous email?
>> The purpose of writing an email to the SW CG was exactly to ask for help
>> if there is not a 3rd way I cannot think about yet.
>> I think the minutes of the last F2F meeting of the WG summarize well all
>> this discussion.
>> Best regards.
>> †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 13:11:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 14 September 2010 13:11:36 GMT