W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-lld@w3.org > July 2010

Re: Ontology for Media Resource 1.0

From: Karen Coyle <kcoyle@kcoyle.net>
Date: Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:19:47 -0700
Message-ID: <20100724081947.kasa6xchlwkkw0wg@kcoyle.net>
To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Cc: "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>, public-xg-lld@w3.org
I think this points out an interesting issue that I will add to our  
topic list: how to have the "right" players at the table when doing  
ontology development. All of us have our niches that we work in and  
are familiar with, and we tend to create our development environment  
within that niche. Yet there may be others with essential expertise  
with whom we are not familiar. Somehow we need a discovery system that  
helps us identify other communities with relevant expertise. Those  
communities may choose not to participate, but it is a shame to get  
far along in the development of an ontology before discovering some  
experts who could contribute valuable information.

This isn't entirely unrelated to another issue, which is how do you  
discover existing ontologies? I think that every one that I have  
learned about has been suggested to me in an email, so for the moment  
discovery depends on "the kindness of strangers." :-)

kc

Quoting Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>:

> Hi all,
>
> I am participating in the media annotation working group, and I am
> co-authoring the ontology document. Some background for this thread: as you
> have seen, the mappings of multimedia formats to a common format (with the
> prefix "ma") provided in the ontology document current comes in the fashion
> of a table. This is because one use case for the mappings of existing
> formats to the "ma" vocabulary is to be information used by an API, as
> described in the "API for media resources" document, see
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608/ . In that use case,
> you basically need to know about the mappings and apply them e.g. in API
> methods like this one
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608/#contributor--interface
> .
> That is, you don't need any Semantic Web based machinery to implement this.
> Another use case is to provide a mapping using an RDF-based ontology. A task
> force within the working group is working on that, since there is a heavy
> demand for this use case as well. Nevertheless it is important that the
> working group produces a set of mapping which can be used for both use cases
> and which fulfills both needs - e.g. a browser-centered, let's say
> JavaScript-API and the application of the mappings for linked data
> scenarios. It is unfortunate that you don't see the RDF-based ontology yet,
> but it is on it's way.
> Finally let me emphasize that the key to the whole endavour is to get broad
> consensus about the mappings, no matter if they are expressed as a table or
> as RDF. So I encourage you to have a detailed look at the mappings and
> provide comments to the working group.
> Regarding Jeff's comment
> "It would be even better for Linked Data use if they had added a few more
> properties like ma:hasGenericDocument, ma:hasWebDocument, and
> ma:representsRealWorldObject, ..."
> The purpose of the "ma" properties is to provide not more information than
> what is in existing formats.  Of course that does not forbid you to add
> these properties in a different name space if you expose media objects as
> linked data. It is just out of scope for the working group.
> Regarding Karen's comment: "also note that they don't include one of the
> metadata schemas for broadcast media: PBCore [1]. Are they only covering
> stored digital media?" Yes, the focus of the working group is stored digital
> media. Nevertheless I'd again encourage you to make this comment directly to
> the working group at
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/ . What formats
> are (not) part of the mappings basically depends on who is making the effort
> to provide mappings. Finding people for this kind of work is sometimes not
> easy.
>
> Felix
>
> 2010/7/23 Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>
>
>> I agree this definition of media resource is a bit broad. Keep in mind
>> this is still a "Working Draft" and doesn't have authority yet.
>>
>> Nevertheless, I think the extension of meaning could become believable
>> if they took Linked Data (i.e. real things) into account. Sadly, they
>> don't yet. Adding ma:hasGenericDocument, ma:hasWebDocument, and
>> ma:representsRealWorldObject properties would be a good start.
>>
>> Ontologies are the new metadata.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
>> > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:45 PM
>> > To: Young,Jeff (OR)
>> > Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
>> > Subject: Re: Ontology for Media Resource 1.0
>> >
>> > I find their definition of media resource to be a bit broad:
>> >
>> > "A media resource is any physical or logical Resource that can be
>> > identified using a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as defined by
>> > [RFC 3986]) , which has or is related to one or more media content
>> > types."
>> >
>> > I also note that they don't include one of the metadata schemas for
>> > broadcast media: PBCore [1]. Are they only covering stored digital
>> > media?
>> >
>> > This is something that we will definitely run into -- the content v.
>> > carrier question. At what point is something "media" rather than "not
>> > media"? And how do we create metadata where different carriers with
>> > the same content can be identified and used together? I think this is
>> > one of the big dilemmas of librarianship today.
>> >
>> > kc
>> > [1] http://pbcore.org
>> >
>> >
>> > Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
>> >
>> > > This ontology looks promising for describing Web resource that are
>> > > important for LLD:
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I wonder why they didn't produce any OWL to formalize it
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > It would be even better for Linked Data use if they had added a few
>> > more
>> > > properties like ma:hasGenericDocument, ma:hasWebDocument, and
>> > > ma:representsRealWorldObject,
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Jeff
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ---
>> > >
>> > > Jeffrey A. Young
>> > > Software Architect
>> > > OCLC Research, Mail Code 410
>> > > OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
>> > > 6565 Kilgour Place
>> > > Dublin, OH 43017-3395
>> > > www.oclc.org <http://www.oclc.org>
>> > >
>> > > Voice: 614-764-4342
>> > > Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342
>> > > Fax: 614-718-7477
>> > > Email: jyoung@oclc.org <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > --
>> > Karen Coyle
>> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
>> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
>> > m: 1-510-435-8234
>> > skype: kcoylenet
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>>
>



-- 
Karen Coyle
kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
ph: 1-510-540-7596
m: 1-510-435-8234
skype: kcoylenet
Received on Saturday, 24 July 2010 15:20:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 24 July 2010 15:20:27 GMT