RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties

Joakim,

Here we are.  Are we redefining a new Dublin Core ("a nice vocabulary that others would like to use" as you call it) or are we working on a tool to map with a number of existing formats?

It is a matter of scope.

In any case, if we want to do the former then we'd better work on RDF and leave those who have used other formats map to it. Then we would really be working on an ontology although archaic for an ontology.

As I said during the F2F, we would now badly need to know exactly what we are trying to achieve.

Regards,

Jean-pierre 

-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Joakim Söderberg
Sent: mercredi, 18. novembre 2009 14:57
To: Tobias Bürger
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties

Jean-Pierre did not like it because he doesn't believe that there will be mappings to all sub properties from all formats. Ex. "album title" in TVA, ID3 etc.

He has a point but I think that if we define a nice vocabulary that becomes popular, more mappings will follow from several contributors. Which by the way inclines that we should make it possible in the future to (easily) update the ontology. But I guess that has to do with the implementation.

/Joakim

-----Original Message-----
From: Tobias Bürger [mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at] 
Sent: den 18 november 2009 13:57
To: Joakim Söderberg
Subject: Re: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties

Hi Joakim,

I agree, having subproperties is like extending the core set with qualifying terms for each of the attributes we defined. I think that having subproperties could give us a more precise way to define the mappings and not to end up in being too generic in parts where most of the formats we have in scope are more specific.

I have seen that there were some people that did not like the idea of subproperties @ the F2F. What were their arguments (if you remember)?

Best regards,

Tobias

Joakim Söderberg wrote:
> Hi Tobias, thanks for accepting the AP.
>
> I had a look at the properties defined in AMG (All Media Guide; see Video_tables) and EBU (see zip file).
>
> The more I think about the sub-properties the more I think they are an integral part of the Ontology. It's like extending the core set with qualifying terms for each core attribute, or what do you think?
>
>
> All the best
> Joakim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Bürger [mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at]
> Sent: den 18 november 2009 08:32
> To: Joakim Söderberg
> Subject: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties
>
> Hi Joakim,
>
> as you might know I got the action to work on the subproperties for the properties we defined in the ontology. I started to read what you discussed during the F2F and also talked to Florian yesterday to discuss this.
> I have seen that you have already started on this issue at 
> http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Sub_Types
> I just wanted to ask you which sources you already considered, i.e. 
> where you looked for possible subproperties? Based on that I can start of working on the subproperties.
>
> Thanks a lot in advance for your answer!
>
> Best regards,
>
> Tobias
>
> --
> _________________________________________________
> Dr. Tobias Bürger
>
> STI Innsbruck
> University of Innsbruck, Austria
> http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/
>
> tobias.buerger@sti2.at
> __________________________________________________
>   

-- 
_________________________________________________
Dr. Tobias Bürger

STI Innsbruck
University of Innsbruck, Austria
http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/ 

tobias.buerger@sti2.at
__________________________________________________

Received on Wednesday, 18 November 2009 14:03:05 UTC