RE: [FYI] [W3C MAWG] Example of property mapping using semantic technologies

I will make sure it is on top of the agenda for next week!

/joakim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Soohong Daniel Park
> Sent: den 17 mars 2009 14:05
> To: 'Tobias Bürger'; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [FYI] [W3C MAWG] Example of property mapping using semantic
> technologies
> 
> Veronique and Tobias,
> 
> sorry for missing your good discussion today call due to lack of time
> space.
> It will be discussed during the next call. Of course, we can keep working
> on
> this thread on the mailing list until the next call...
> 
> That's very good information and thanks a lot.
> 
> 
> -----
> Soohong Daniel Park
> Standard Architect, blog.naver.com/natpt
> DMC Business, Samsung Electronics. KOREA
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> > annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Burger
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2009 9:14 PM
> > To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> > Subject: [FYI] [W3C MAWG] Example of property mapping using semantic
> > technologies
> >
> > Dear all,
> >
> > Veronique and myself have our first toy example ready to demonstrate how
> > the mapping of properties could work using semantics. The example maps
> > properties from Dublin Core [2]  to XMP [4].
> >
> > We see 4 different solutions on how we could approach this mapping:
> >
> > (1) The first option is to use SKOS mappings [1]. The problem with this
> > option is, that SKOS mappings were being conceived to hold between SKOS
> > concepts and not properties. So we would  use the mapping vocabulary in
> a
> > semantically incorrect way (from the point of the SKOS specification and
> > the inference engines trying to make sense of it).
> >
> > (2) The second option is to use owl:equivalentProperty / owl:sameAs
> which
> > we can not consider given the different semantics of the properties
> > defined in the different formats
> >
> > (3) The third option is to subProperty all the properties from the
> formats
> > to e.g. Dublin Core [2], Dublin Core Terms [3] or any other format which
> > is generic enough.
> >
> > (4) The fourth option is to create our own authoritative schema which
> > consolidates all the formats we are looking at and to which the other
> > formats can be mapped to.
> >
> > Veronique has prepared a small example using the first option which
> > matches from the DC properties from [2] to XMP properties from [4].
> > Please find the example attached (XMPtoDCskosMapping.rdf). The XMP
> > properties came from the XMP example document which is also attached
> > (xmpexample.xml).
> >
> > We are curious to hear your opinion on the options above and our toy
> > example.
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Tobias & Veronique
> >
> >
> > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/skos-reference/#mapping
> > [2] http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/
> > [3] http://dublincore.org/documents/dcmi-terms/
> > [4] http://www.exiv2.org/tags-xmp-xmpMM.html
> >
> > --
> > _________________________________________________
> > Dipl.-Inf. Univ. Tobias Bürger
> >
> > STI Innsbruck
> > University of Innsbruck, Austria
> > http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/
> >
> > tobias.buerger@sti2.at
> > __________________________________________________
> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 14:58:53 UTC