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

Re: Interoperability Framework and Vocabulary

From: Jeff Z. Pan <jpan@csd.abdn.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2007 00:16:09 -0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <2271.61.144.133.234.1172103369.squirrel@www.csd.abdn.ac.uk>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: public-xg-mmsem@w3.org

Dear RaphaŽl and all,

RaphaŽl Troncy wrote:
> Dear Jeff,
>
>> After some thoughts, it seems to me that there is quite a connection
>> between the interoperability framework and the vocabulary deliverable.
>
> Yes, there is certainly strong links :-)

Good :-)

>
>> The goal of the former one is to provide an integrated set of vocabulary
>> within a simple extensible framework. In fact, an integrated set of
>> vocabulary is
>> the most needed component in the framework.
>
> Hummmm, I would not say that. From my perspective, the goal of the
former is
> to show how to use together different vocabularies in the context of a
> specific use case

It might not be proper to design the interoperability framework for *a
specific use case*. In the framework, we use the bottom-up approach to
support a set of use cases identified in the XG. As we presented to the
SWCG in the telecon, our use cases cover the following three layers (which
are based on our FTF2 discussions):

- Content layer: such as Algorithm representation
- Media+domain layer: such as Photo, Music and News
- End-user layer: such as Tagging

Note that although we expect the framework to hopefully cover many
applications related to the use cases, we won't claim that the framework
would cover all possible related applications.

> even though these vocabularies have been made for different
> purposes. So it is rather, for practical applications, what motivate the
needs
> to use several vocabularies and how combine them.

Yes, the goals are to identify the needs ("why") and to provide a
mechanism to integrate/combine the vocabulary ("how"). As we all see the
"why" bit, the mentioned goal is focus on the "how" part. In particular,
the keywords are "integrated" (as discussed) and "extensible" (how to make
the framework at least slightly extensible to support some
standard/vocabulary that we don't explicitly cover in the framework), as
well as "simple" (we are aiming to provide a framework which is easy to
understand and use).


>> The simplest form of
>> integration is to assert samePropertyAs; i.e., we should be able to say
>> property P1 in standard S1 is the same as the property P2 in standard S2.
>
> He he he!!! But that works only in the easy case where you assume that your
> vocabularies strongly overlap.

Not necessarily. It would be indeed helpful as long as there exists any
overlap.

>  This is unfirtunately now always our case.

I wouldn't say it is *now always" our case, but this is one of the cases
that the simple framework can/should cover. And an integrated set of
vocabulary is indeed what the Photo use case asks for. It is important to
note that we want to include in our simple framework some useful *and*
easy-to-support features, such as the samePropertyAs relation.

> We
> rather use different vocabularies that complement each other ... so not
really
> "owl:sameAs" or "owl:equivalentClass" or "owl:samePropertyAs" or ....

Indeed, the framework should/could  *also* cover some other simple
features. The intention of my previous email is to encourage some
discussion on what else we should consider in order to improve
interoperability towards this direction.

>
>> Given the use cases that we have, I wonder how hard it is to identify such
>> equivalent relations.
>
> Oscar did that to some extent with the music ontologies. Is it what you
have
> in mind?
>

It would be nice if Oscar could kindly share with us his opinions w.r.t.
the music use case. Authors of other use cases are very welcome join the
discussions too :-)

>> Furthermore, given the use cases, I wonder if there
>> are any other cross standard/vocabulary relations that we have to handle
>> in the simple framework.
>
> I don't get this question :-(

I meant other simple features that the framework should cover, as
discussed above.

Best regards,
Jeff


> My 2 c.
> Best regards.
>
>     RaphaŽl
>
> --
> RaphaŽl Troncy
> CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
> Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
> Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
> Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
>
>
>
>


-- 

Dr. Jeff Z. Pan (http://www.csd.abdn.ac.uk/~jpan/)
Department of Computing Science, The University of Aberdeen
Received on Thursday, 22 February 2007 00:16:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:21:21 GMT