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

Dear Véronique, Silvia, all,

I agree with both of you in that the need of multiple description levels is 
only related to a small subset of use cases, basically to those related to 
the management of groups of resources (e.g. digital asset management 
systems, user media collections, etc.). Instead, we are (I guess) focused in 
embedded annotations in individual resources.

However, I think that there are solutions which cover both cases, the simple 
and the complex one. For instance, we could embed the following annotation 
within an MPEG video:

<mawg:Video rdf:ID=">
 <mawg:title>astronaut loses tool bag during spacewalk </mawg:title>
 <mawg:creator>John Smith</mawg:creator>

<mawg:Resource rdf:ID="">
 </ mawg:videoID rdf:resource="">

It is structured and it offers 2 abstraction levels, but it can be 
serialized like a plain record. When appearing in isolated resources, the 
high-level annotation ("Video" in this case) would be repeated. When 
appearing within a collection's annotation the "Video" annotation would 
appear just once.

It is not so different than in XMP. Take to the following XMP example...

Best regards,


----- Original Message ----- 
From: <>
To: <>
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 11:27 AM
Subject: my token about the "3 or more layer" structure for the ontology

> 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:
> 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
> 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
> 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 13:02:12 UTC