Re: [web-annotation] Recommend StillImage instead of Image?

This is just to make some facts right (and avoid unintended discussions with outsiders…)

> On 30 Nov 2015, at 16:59, Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu> wrote:
> 
> Hi Raphael,
> 
> I don't necessarly agree or disagree that the string "MovingImage" is poorly descriptive of the concept encapsulated by the string "Video." However, you can place whatever blame you feel is due at the feet of library and information science folks (specifically catalogers - with whom I can be numbered -- my early LIS days). The use of "MovingImage traces way back to the turn of the last century when "movies" were called "moving pictures" (movie is actually short-hand for moving picture). We are fortunate that "talkie" (i.e., "talking picture" was a very short-lived term). Whether or not we want to debate the merits of one string over the other (e.g., do they identify equivalent concepts?), this is not really a good venue as it doesn't necessarily have to do with annotations themselves. 
> 
> As I see it the bigger problem is using strings to identify these concepts instead of linked data. Linked data makes interoperability possible. It is impossible to achieve interoperability with just strings because we'll never in a million years get people to agree on which strings to use (there's also the abbreviation problem).
> 
> While some may see using other W3 vocabularies as a good thing to do, I don't agree that it is (and the following is something of an indictment vis-a-vis the W3C's long-term strategic view). For a great while now the W3C has spent a lot of time and resources to reinvent the wheel (through things like vCard, Schema, and Activity Streams) when they arguably should have been working on a general container and selector vocabulary which could be used as a shared foundation for semantic web vocabularies. Vocabularies like vCard, Schema, and Activity Streams don't actually provide any advantages over existing vocabularies like FOAF, Dublin Core, and DOLCE. The main reason to use them is a political one -- they are W3C standards. They are W3C brand wheels. But why would I buy W3C brand wheels when I have other brand wheels that are equivalent if not better (and cheaper)? Just because a vocabulary has been around for a while doesn't mean it's bad. Just because it's new and/or made by the W3C doesn't mean it's good. Think of all of the failings that the rdf and rdfs standards have. 

vCard is not a standard, just a W3C Note[1]. Actually, [1] does not add any technical issues to the IETF specification[2], it just expresses an outside vocabulary in RDF & OWL.

Schema.org <http://schema.org/> is *definitely* not a W3C standard either. It is a vocabulary maintained by a large community (the involvement of W3C is merely to provide the forum for that community), sponsored by Google, Yahoo!, Yandex, and Microsoft. Actually, the sponsors are also the final arbiters of the technical content. Ie, the decision of using (or not) schema.org <http://schema.org/> terms have nothing to do with the W3C brand.

Cheers

Ivan

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/ <http://www.w3.org/TR/vcard-rdf/>
[2] http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6350


> 
> For these reasons I don't think we should use Schema types instead of DC types. If anything, we should do the extra work to provide examples using both vocabularies and in that way ensure the Web Annotation's standard's uptake by both communities. It's not so important that we be seen eating W3C brand dog food. It's much more important that we get others to see how they can exploit the Web Anno vocabulary within their own contexts.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jacob
> 
> 
> 
> _____________________________________________________
> Jacob Jett
> Research Assistant
> Center for Informatics Research in Science and Scholarship
> The Graduate School of Library and Information Science
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 501 E. Daniel Street, MC-493, Champaign, IL 61820-6211 USA
> (217) 244-2164
> jjett2@illinois.edu <mailto:jjett2@illinois.edu>
> 
> On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr <mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>> wrote:
> Hi Jacob,
> 
> > Actually there is a simple dctype for audio dctype:Sound
> > (http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Sound <http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/Sound>).
> 
> Thanks, I overlooked this one.
> 
> > I don't see an advantage to using the Schema vocabulary over the DCMI
> > vocabulary which is highly extensible and serves as the foundation for
> > many existing web ontologies.
> 
> Regarding DCMI modeling, I still have problem to consider that a movie
> (dctype:MovingImage) is a subclass of an image (dctype:Image), even when
> stretching the definition of an image as dctype does. This is counter
> intuitive and going against what most other (media) ontologies do
> (ontology for media resources, schema.org <http://schema.org/>, EBUCore, etc.).
> 
> Regarding schema.org <http://schema.org/>, I just observe that Web Annotations plan already
> to re-use some of its terms.
> 
> Finally, we are talking about describing media resources, so why is the
> *W3C* ontology for Media Resources not the most natural candidate
> ontology to re-use?
> Best regards.
> 
>    Raphaël
> 
> --
> Raphaël Troncy
> EURECOM, Campus SophiaTech
> Multimedia Communications Department
> 450 route des Chappes, 06410 Biot, France.
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr <mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr> & raphael.troncy@gmail.com <mailto:raphael.troncy@gmail.com>
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242 <tel:%2B33%20%280%294%20-%209300%208242>
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200 <tel:%2B33%20%280%294%20-%209000%208200>
> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/ <http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/>
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C 
Digital Publishing Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
ORCID ID: http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0782-2704