Re: [mawg] RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties

Jean-Pierre, Felix,

If I understand your point, our focus should be on enabling existing
formats to map to the API, not on hoping that people will drop those
format in favor of RDF with an ad-hoc new vocabulary. And I agree with that.

However, I don't think that defining an API and defining a language are
so different tasks as you seem to imply. An API is a vocabulary for a
programming language. An ontology is (in the SemWeb world) a vocabulary
for RDF. We are to focus on the API, granted, and the ontology is here
only to formally define the mapping. But let's not discard a proposal
just because it is about a "vocabulary".

I think subproperties would help provide a fine-grain access to the
underlying metadata. I think that subproperties should be an optional
attribute of our return values. So users could just stick to the value
(interpreted in the context of the ma: property they retrieved, or they
could try to make more sense out of the provided sub-property.

Whether we should define our own set of subproperty or just reflect
those provided by the underlying format... I'm still not sure. Both
options have their advantages.

  pa



Le 18/11/2009 15:28, Evain, Jean-Pierre a écrit :
> HI Felix,
> 
>  
> 
> That was also my perception.
> 
>  
> 
> R, JP
> 
>  
> 
> *From:* felix.sasaki@googlemail.com [mailto:felix.sasaki@googlemail.com]
> *On Behalf Of *Felix Sasaki
> *Sent:* mercredi, 18. novembre 2009 15:20
> *To:* Evain, Jean-Pierre
> *Cc:* Joakim Söderberg; Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> *Subject:[mawg] * Re: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Jean-Pierre,
> 
> we are definitely working on a tool to map with a number of existing
> formats. Note also that all the concrete implementations we have so far
> go this route, and the browser scenario proposed by Silvia does that
> too. The "new" properties are no new vocabulary, but just a means to
> make clear what the smallest common nominator between existing formats is.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Felix
> 
> 2009/11/18 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch <mailto:evain@ebu.ch>>
> 
> 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>
> [mailto: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 <mailto:public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> Subject:[mawg] 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
> <mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at>]
> Sent: den 18 november 2009 13:57
> To: Joakim Söderberg
> Subject:[mawg] 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
> <mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at>]
>> Sent: den 18 november 2009 08:32
>> To: Joakim Söderberg
>> Subject:[mawg] [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 <mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
>> __________________________________________________
>>
> 
> --
> _________________________________________________
> Dr. Tobias Bürger
> 
> STI Innsbruck
> University of Innsbruck, Austria
> http://www.sti-innsbruck.at/
> 
> tobias.buerger@sti2.at <mailto:tobias.buerger@sti2.at>
> __________________________________________________
> 
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> * ************************************************** This email and any
> files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the
> use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have
> received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This
> footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the
> mailgateway ************************************************** *
>