W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > March 2009

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

From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:09:45 +0100
Cc: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Message-Id: <7876EE58-440D-4143-9FBA-ACFEA2CE0D3C@few.vu.nl>
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>

I used this controversial mapping example to show that we could not  
use owl:equivalentProperty between the properties (this is an extreme  
case, but in my opinion even very closely related properties should  
not be stated as equivalent); in dcterms there are better mappings  
than with dc:date anyway, so the whole "mapping proposal" is subject  
to debate: the whole idea was to show an example of a syntax  
displaying relations in skos between pairs of properties. The "real"  
file will be based on the mapping table after the reviewing phase. But  
I agree with your comment and with the "borderline-ness" of this  
mapping proposition.
And you are indeed right about the 2nd rdfs:comment, thanks for  
correcting it!


On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:01 PM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:

> Tobias Bürger wrote:
>>> 1/ I do not agree about the mapping between xmp:CreatorTool (a  
>>> *tool*)
>>>    and dc:creator (an *agent*).
>> We had a discussion about this actually, too. The official  
>> defintion of
>> dc:creator is "Examples of a Creator include a person, an  
>> organization,
>> or a service. Typically, the name of a Creator should be used to
>> indicate the entity." [2] So a creator can be a service. It is  
>> debateble
>> if this includes a tool, too.
> About dc:Creator, since
> 1/ the DC spec calls it a service rather than a software, and
> 2/ the other two examples (person, organization) are clearly agents,
> I tend to interpret "service" here not as *any* software, but as  
> having
> some "agentive quality".
> For example, a webcam publishing photos on the web every 10 minutes,  
> is
> making it "on its own", in a sense. Although one could attribute those
> photos to the person/organization that owns the webcam, it may seem  
> more
> relevant to state that the webcam (or the software running it) creates
> the photos.
> But this is, in my view, very different from stating that  
> "photoshop" or
> "the gimp" created a photo that I edited with them.
> Note that I have no definite optinion on whether the software running
> the webcam is an appropriate value for xmp:CreatorTool, though... :)
>  pa
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 13:11:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:34 UTC