W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-emotion@w3.org > January 2008

OWL version

From: Ian Wilson <ian@neon.ai>
Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2008 23:15:03 +0900
Message-ID: <47A08667.7080206@neon.ai>
To: Bill Jarrold <jarrold@AI.SRI.COM>
CC: public-xg-emotion@w3.org

Bill,

At this point in time our investigations and examples are just to show 
what a "typical" use case might look like (i.e. our requirements use 
cases). The details are not too important (I don't believe), we just 
need to see what an example would "look" like, to get the flavor of the 
differences between an XML, RDF and OWL representation. My own example 
just has dummy data in. So don't worry at this point about the mechanics 
of any particular model.

wrt your specific questions:

a. Differing models - We are trying to accommodate as many models as 
possible while being model agnostic. However there are 3 main model 
types that are widely used and represented here, Catagory/Label models, 
Dimensional models (like my own) and Appraisal type models. Ideally our 
representation would be flexible enough to allow it to any variation of 
those types of model.

Our use cases were a way to find who the languages users would be and 
what *their* needs might be so we can ensure we are building something 
people may actually use and need.

b. "Do the other annotation options (e.g. XML or RDF) allow for 
namespaces?" : Yes for RDF, it is a central part of the rdf idea. XML 
also has name spaces (xmlns).

c."Can we import between xml files? Can we import between rdf files?" : 
Yes and Yes. This will be an important part of our effort as we wish to 
inter-operate with out languages (for example SMIL I believe, see June 
2007 posts for more details).

Best,

Ian
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2008 14:15:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 30 January 2008 14:15:21 GMT