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

RE: OWL FULL or DL?

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:01:10 +0200
To: 'Victor Rodriguez Doncel' <victorr@ac.upc.edu>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CEEB7F29A@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
HI Victor.

See you in China.

I must admit I have the feeling the current work falls within the current scope. Probably some clarification on the possible contribution to RDFa and HTML-5 would make this even more attractive.

Regards,

Jean-Pierre



From: Victor Rodriguez Doncel [mailto:victorr@ac.upc.edu]
Sent: jeudi, 23. septembre 2010 12:35
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: 'RaphaŽl Troncy'; 'Yves Raimond'; Tobias BŁrger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: OWL FULL or DL?


Lately I have been just lurking in this group, but if I see any of you in Guangzhou I will take the oportunity to inquiry about your progress. I think you are doing a great job!

Other thing: being now an outsider, I think that maybe Florian is right and the scope or the mission statement should be rewritten or extended. The current text may not be enough and perhaps not completely accurate.

The mission of the Media Annotations Working Group, part of the Video in the Web Activity<http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/>, is to provide an ontology and API designed to facilitate cross-community data integration of information related to media objects in the Web, such as video, audio and images.

Victor




>Dear all,

>

>i donīt want to get too deep into this discussion at the moment, but i guess the key problem is, that the scope of the >ontology is not yet clear to everybody or was not yet defined in a right way. Maybe we should clearly state what we want >to achieve with it (also reflect it into the onto-doc). Maybe this should end the discussion. From my point of view, at >the moment it is not more than a vocabulary. Maybe it will be "more", if there is the possibility to store mappings as >well - which is afaik also the purpose of it.

>

>Best,

>Florian


On 22/09/2010 12:47, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
Thanks Victor.

I am personally quite agnostic. OWL 2 is an option but the question is still the same in terms of acceptance and penetration. How do you see this?

We can chat over this in Guangzhou in 2 weeks.

JP

From: Victor Rodriguez Doncel [mailto:victorr@ac.upc.edu]
Sent: mercredi, 22. septembre 2010 12:42
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: 'RaphaŽl Troncy'; 'Yves Raimond'; Tobias BŁrger; public-media-annotation@w3.org<mailto:public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Subject: Re: OWL FULL or DL?

Will not be OWL 2.0 directly used?
Problems could be overcome if the right profile is chosen...

Victor

Evain, Jean-Pierre escribiů:

I don't have to justify myself and give names. I am reporting what I hear from discussions on different reflectors dated yesterday (not browsing all chats).



If people have concerns about the compatibility of OWL FULL, that's enough for me to ring a bell.  I need  more than what you said to reassure me on the choice (although as I inferred in my previous mail some OWL FULL features are attractive).



What would tell me that OWL FULL is well supported? References please...



Jean-Pierre





-----Original Message-----

From: RaphaŽl Troncy [mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr]

Sent: mercredi, 22. septembre 2010 12:02

To: Evain, Jean-Pierre

Cc: 'Yves Raimond'; Tobias BŁrger; public-media-annotation@w3.org<mailto:public-media-annotation@w3.org>

Subject: Re: OWL FULL or DL?





On the other hand, there are voices/concerns about the support of OWL

FULL by current implementations of OWL APIs.





Old and useless debate.

What are these voices/concerns? References please ...



   RaphaŽl
Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 12:42:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 23 September 2010 12:42:10 GMT