W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > April 2011

RE: EBUCore and Eurovision NewsML-G2 in RDF

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2011 09:55:52 +0200
To: 'Pierre-Antoine Champin' <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, "ecm@list.ebu.ch" <ecm@list.ebu.ch>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010ED49779E3@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Hello Pierre Antoine,

I'll try to go one step further in exploring the problem for which I don't have a clear answer (if there is to be one ;-).

Maybe the easiest is to go through scenarios:

Scenario 1:
A user develops a green-field application and decides to use ma-ont. Descriptions / individuals are generated in this format using the RDF provided in the ontology and stored in a triple store (or else). The reasoned does the indexing following the schema. Searches can be made using e.g. SPARQL.

The same user realises that there is a lot of data conforming to one or more additional formats e.g EBUCore or NewsML-G2, both expressed in RDF. He starts harvesting the triples available in these formats and also wants to re-index this data from different sources. The user therefore acquires the schema and uses its reasoned to index the data.  This is primarily done on each set of data e.g. EBUCore and NewsML-G2 RDF, all results being agin stored e.g. in a triple store.

In order to combine this data and achieve richer query results. The user either develop its own RDF mapping between the different ontologies or reuses an existing one (like one of the files I distributed)......

This is where is the dilemma:

Option 1: he reindexes all the data in its triple store (containing ma-ont, EBUCore and NewsML-G2 triples) using only the mapping RDF schema provided separately.

Option 2: he creates a super schema importing ma-ont, EBUCore and NewsML-G2 in RDF, plus the mapping RDF schema and uses its reasoned to reindex all the data

Is option 1 better than or equivalent to option 2? Is there an another option? Etc.

Are there other scenarios that could allow addressing the problem more specifically ?

Best regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: Pierre-Antoine Champin [mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr] 
Sent: samedi, 2. avril 2011 12:01
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org; ecm@list.ebu.ch
Subject: Re: EBUCore and Eurovision NewsML-G2 in RDF

Hi Jean-Pierre,

On 03/30/2011 01:14 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> (...) These two ontologies offer maximum compatibility with MA-ONT

very nice :)

> I have done the exercise to define the equivalence between the
> classes and properties, which is really easy in the above
> circumstances.  However, I am facing a dilemma. Should I declare the
> equivalences in a separate 'mapping ontology' pointing to the
> EBUCore, MA-ONT and NML-G2 ontologies as remote resources, or
> 'import' them within their own namespace in one ontology containing
> the equivalence declarations?

not sure what you mean by "pointing to X as a remote resource", nor by
"importint X in its own namespace"...

could you provide a short example of both approach?


This email and any files transmitted with it 
are confidential and intended solely for the 
use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. 
If you have received this email in error, 
please notify the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email 
message has been swept by the mailgateway
Received on Monday, 4 April 2011 07:56:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:41 UTC