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

Re: RE : RE : change proposal in the ontology and API document (ACTION-412)

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2011 19:08:55 +0200
Message-ID: <4DC97127.1010407@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
On 05/09/2011 01:39 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> An example for the second point:
> frameRate could have MediaResource as a domain instead of
> videoTrack.
> That would allow defning the framerate of the media resource without
> having to have a blank node for an undefined videotrack.

I see your point now.
So you suggest all the properties with a subclass of MediaResource as
their domain should instead have domain MediaResource itself ?

Why not. In fact, as the abstract ontology does not make that
distinction, I think it is even better that the RDF ontology does not
commit in such an interpretation.

If noone objects to that, I'll fix the RDF and TTL files accordingly.


> It seems that e.g. most part of track related object properties already directly point ot the mediaResource.
> ________________________________________
> De : Pierre-Antoine Champin [pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr]
> Date d'envoi : lundi, 9. mai 2011 09:50
> À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc : public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Objet : Re: RE : change proposal in the ontology and API document (ACTION-412)
> On 05/07/2011 12:53 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
>> Dear all,
>> considering all the recent discussions, why don't we just change all datatypes for literal and provide definitions for the formats. We did it for string and dateTime already.
> In the case of datatype, unspecifying is really a necessary evil, IMHO.
> The case of dates was sufficiently compelling to convince me to do it,
> but I didn't do it gladly.
> Unless a real practical problem arises with other datatype properties,
> I'm not in favor of underspecify them.
>> Something else about the RDF, although I did it, I wonder if:
>> - Should we remove restrictions on certain properties e.g. valid on image and not audio, etc.
> We did that some time ago, IIRC, because it required owl:unionOf, which
> was breaking compliance with simple OWL2 profiles.
>> - Should we state all these properties at the higher level. mediaResource and sub-classes will inherit them but if these classes are not duly identified, it would allow declaring properties without unnecessary blank nodes and the associated management of dummy identifiers
> sorry, I don't understand that. Can you give an example?
>   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 Tuesday, 10 May 2011 17:09:32 UTC

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