W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xg-mmsem@w3.org > April 2007

FW: Photo UC : DIG-35 Ontology

From: chris poppe <chris.poppe@elis.ugent.be>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 11:24:31 +0200
To: <public-xg-mmsem@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001701c662c9$e655d090$6501a8c0@elis.UGent.be>
Dear Raphaël,


Please find my comments below, 

>I also found the splitting of the ontology into several files relevant. Did
you design the ontology using a tool (Protégé?) or did you edit the owl
files with a text editor? If you have used Protégé, could you also put the
project file on the web? 

We have created the owl files with a text editor and used Protégé for
validation. For this we used Protégé 4.0m Build 29. This version does not
work with project files but allows to directly open the ontologies in *.owl
files (ascii text). As such, all the files we have are on the web.

>Have you written (or do you plan to write) a paper about the
"ontologization" of DIG35, the modeling choices, etc.? 

We haven’t written a paper about this, but we may/intend to do this. In this
case we will probably need to get in touch with the people behind DIG35 to
see how we can cooperate in the creation of such a publication.

>Is the ontology covering the whole standard? 

The ontology is covering the whole standard in the sence that all concepts
can be represented. The specific relations/restrictions between concepts of
the DIG35 standard, could be further refined, however we do not see this as
our primary goal. 

>About the properties and the classes modeled: I have found several of them
described in other ontologies that seem to have a similar semantics (or more
specific or more general). For example, one could >define dig35:imageCreator
has a subproperty of dc:creator. 
>Would that make sense to try to establish links between the DIG35 ontology
with other popular ontologies, such as DC, FOAF, not mentionning MPEG-7
(cross-ref here to the other XGR about MPEG->7 conversion in OWL)! 

Indeed, when building the scheme we noticed several concepts which could
easily be mapped upon other metadata standards. Within the DIG35 standard
several concepts have been redefined, which are already represented within
other metadata schemes. We have chosen to include these concepts in our
ontology. The next step would indeed be to make an ontology which defines
the relations between these standards. 

>The sample description you gave has been made by hand, correct? Do you plan
to also develop some automatic converters? 

The sample description has indeed been made by hand. For validation purposes
we used Protégé by including the instances in our owl scheme. Currently we
do not plan to develop automatic conversion of DIG35 XML to RDF
descriptions. However, we would be mostly interested on feedback on this

>Photo Use Case: 
>Will the DIG35 / OWL conversion be central in the use case? How do you plan
to incorporate this work in the interoperability problems described so far? 

As was said before, we believe the central topic in the use case (and other
use cases) should be a global ontology covering the different formal
representations of multimedia metadata within the domain of the use case. As
Erik said, we did not investigate how XMP can be used in this story. I
believe that the use of XMP is not only related to our use case but could be
considered across the different use cases.

Suzanne, could you please clarify your view on what should be the central
topic of the photo use case and the role of XMP within this or other use

Kind regards,

Chris, Gaëtan and Erik

Ghent University - IBBT
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Electronics and Information Systems (ELIS)
Multimedia Lab Gaston Crommenlaan 8 bus 201
B-9050 Ledeberg-Ghent

t: +32 9 33 14959
f: +32 9 33 14896
t secr: +32 9 33 14911
e:  <mailto:chris.poppe@ugent.be>  <mailto:chris.poppe@ugent.be>

URL:  <http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be/>

Received on Wednesday, 18 April 2007 15:48:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:01:25 UTC