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

Re: EBUCore and Eurovision NewsML-G2 in RDF

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2011 16:04:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4D99D008.6000903@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, "ecm@list.ebu.ch" <ecm@list.ebu.ch>
Hi Jean-Pierre

from the two options you present, it seems to me that your question
boils down to

 "should I materialize inferences or not?"

or in other terms

 "should I compute all the inference once and for all and store them?"

where option 1 is "yes" and option 2 is "no".

Some elements of answers can be found here

  http://patterns.dataincubator.org/book/ch04s07.html

-- and the short answer is "yes and no" :-)

 pa



On 04/04/2011 09:55 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> 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,
> 
> Jean-Pierre
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----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?
> 
> pa
> 
> ----------------------------------------- 
> ************************************************** 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 14:05:28 UTC

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