Re: my token about the "3 or more layer" structure for the ontology

Dear Vèronique, dear all

I think the "multilevel descprition" may be relevant to other Use Cases. 
For example in the Multimedia Adaptation or the Media Analysis.
In the Media Analysis 
(http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/MediaAnalysisUC) it is 
requested linking texts with the images that appear in a video, and this 
linking of scripts with images or videos can be satisfied by the 
"multilevel description" (e.g. This is a Schiller´s poem, declaimed in a 
Beethoven´s Symphony, included as soundtrack in Clockwork Orange movie). 
This might be interesting to answer a query to evaluate Schiller´s 
influence on European´s culture, for example.

Regards,
Víctor


vmalaise@few.vu.nl escribió:
> Hi everyone,
>
>
> I was at first very much in favor of an ontology that would distinguish 
> different levels of media documents, like "work-manifestation-instance-item", 
> but after reading this email from the list:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2008Nov/0076.html
> I agreed with the fact that we would probably only need a simple structure in 
> our case, that multi-level structures were meant for linking different entities 
> that have different status together: if we aim for linking the descriptions of a 
> single item between different vocabularies, we need to specify if the single 
> item is a work_in_XX_vocabulary, more likely a manifestation_in_XX_vocabulary 
> (see note 1 below), to give its "type", and if people/use cases want to link 
> this single item to other related works, manifestations, instances or items, 
> they can use the framework defined in the schemas reviewed in 
>  http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/MultilevelDescriptionReview
> and use these properties for completing their description.
>  
> So we would need a property like "has_type" to link a single description's 
> identifier to the correct level of multilevel description schemes.
>
> I changed my mind think that only one "family" of use cases would need more 
> levels, that they are somehow context dependent (and could thus be considered as 
> requirements for a family of use cases), but of course if it turns out that more 
> that one family of use cases needs this distinction, then we should consider 
> going for a multilevel structure. Anyway, we would need to map informally the 
> way these levels are expressed, in order to provide possible relevant "types" 
> for the description of each single element.
>
> note 1: by specifying the different names of the relevant Concepts/terms in 
> schemes like VRA, XMP etc., we would informally define a semantic equivalence 
> between the ways these schema express these levels of description. It would look 
> like:
> <metadataFile>
> <id="identifier">
> <hasType xmpMM:InstanceID, vra:image, frbr:item>
> </metadataFile>     
>
> I think that the table
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/FeaturesTable
> is a very valuable tool for people to express their ideas about it, thank you 
> very much Ruben for designing it!
>
> Best regards,
> Véronique
>
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 19 November 2008 12:57:20 UTC