W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-annotation@w3.org > November 2015

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

From: Jacob Jett <jjett2@illinois.edu>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2015 09:59:42 -0600
Message-ID: <CABzPtBLaBK1qcBr15EG9OhL9dKyzUws4B3+bBGB+1AEHTVfjZg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Cc: Web Annotation <public-annotation@w3.org>
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.

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

On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 9:25 AM, Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
wrote:

> Hi Jacob,
>
> > Actually there is a simple dctype for audio dctype: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, EBUCore, etc.).
>
> Regarding 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 & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
>
Received on Monday, 30 November 2015 16:00:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 18:54:42 UTC