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

RE : chema.org and our Ontology

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2011 16:08:23 +0200
To: "tobias@tobiasbuerger.com" <tobias@tobiasbuerger.com>, "tmichel@w3.org" <tmichel@w3.org>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010F5A1BC43A@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
IPTC is trying to have them align schema.org with its rNews too. rNews is a simple ontology for news publication originally deverlopped for RDFa. Of course they are also thinking of developing a microdata alternative now.

In any case, we could do the mapping at the model level between classes and properties. But there is also a RDF representation of schema.rdfs.org and maybe we could also develop a RDF mapping.

Regards, Jean-Pierre

________________________________
De : public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] de la part de Tobias Bürger [tobias@tobiasbuerger.com]
Date d'envoi : mercredi, 8. juin 2011 15:55
À : tmichel@w3.org
Cc : public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : Re: chema.org and our Ontology

Hi Thierry,

as stated in my reply to the minutes of yesterday's telecon, I would definitely - at least try - option 4.

Best regards,

Tobias

2011/6/8 Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org<mailto:tmichel@w3.org>>
All,

To follow up on Werner email about Last week  publication of the major search engines Google, Microsoft and Yahoo on the schema.org<http://schema.org> [1] web site an initiative for vocabularies that include sets of properties for image, audio and video content.


There may be quite some overlaps in the domains of the media schemas they define there and our Ontology for Media Resources 1.0 [2].

Yesterday during the MAWG telecon we have discuss if we should add a mapping of this media schemas in our Ontology spec as it seems difficult to ignore it, regarding the major players involved.

We could:

1- Add a mapping in our Ontology (but as these are nomative, this will mean going back to a 3rd Last Call) and delay our spec which is now ready for CR publication.

2- add a mapping in a future Working Note.

3- add a mapping in a future version of Ontology for Media Resources.
Our spec says"The following mappings are established from the Media Ontology's properties to various multimedia metadata formats. This list of formats is not closed, nor does it pretend to be exhaustive. A future version of this specification may include additional mappings if a need or use case is established for these new mappings."

4- have these guys align their schemas to our Media Ontology (let's dream a second ;-)

Currently I have no idea how mature/stable is this media schemas (still a draft or more advanced ?).


After a discussion yesterday with Philippe Le Hegaret during the Interactiuon meeting, I was advised that we should not at this point include a mapping for this schema in our Spec and follow our publication track to CR and beyond. We could adopt point 2 or 3 latter.

This initiative will impact many WGs like RDFa, microformats, HTML, etc...
Therefore W3C will deal with this issue.

Thierry



[1] http://schema.org/

[2] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/drafts/ontology10/CR/mediaont-1.0.html








--
___________________________________
Dr. Tobias Bürger
http://www.tobiasbuerger.com

-----------------------------------------
**************************************************
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 Wednesday, 8 June 2011 14:13:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:42 UTC