- From: Pierre-Antoine <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:30:33 +0100
- To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
- CC: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <4B0653A9.5030400@liris.cnrs.fr>
Hi all,
For the record, I also agree with the last exchanges btw Werner and
Felix, as well as Felix's proposal below.
My only concern is : shouldn't we make the API ready for subproperties
right now? If we don't, we might find out that we made some choices that
prevent anyone to add them...
As I already suggested, a very basic use of subproperty would be not to
standardize any, but consider them as a placeholder for information
about the *actual* property/sub-property used in the underlying format
-- and even leave it to the implementation to decide how to expressit.
Later on (possibly only in version 2.0), we might still decide to
standardize *some* sub-properties to be put in this placeholder.
pa
Le 20/11/2009 08:52, Felix Sasaki a écrit :
> Hello Werner,
>
> thank you for the clarifications. There seems to be one open question to
> me: Is it OK for us to start work on subproperties although we have not
> reached our goals even with the simple properties? IMO, we should first
> for all simple properties
> - define the API methods (done to some extend)
> - provide test cases and test suite material (not done at all)
> - run the tests with at least two implementations
> so that we can be sure to declare victory, even if we don't get to the
> sub property part.
> So I am saying not "no" about sub properties, but postpone work on them
> until we have done our basic job.
>
> Would you and others agree with that?
>
> Best,
>
> Felix
>
> 2009/11/20 Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at
> <mailto:werner.bailer@joanneum.at>>
>
> Dear Felix,
>
> >> > it is a matter of scope as I said before. If you want a
> vocabulary in
> >> > RDF to which people map, fair enough and I was hopping this was the
> >> > original task of the group.
> >> I agree with Pierre-Antoine that defining an RDF vocabulary to map to
> >> and defining an API to access the properties in this vocabulary
> are not
> >> contradicting goals. In fact, this is how some of the mapping
> >> approaches that several people in the group have implemented so far
> >> work internally: map to the properties defined in our vocabulary
> >> (represented in OWL) and then provide getter functions to access
> these
> >> values. So an implementation getAsRDF() function that gives you the
> > source metadata expressed with our vocabulary.
> >
> > well, my implementation is XML-based. So I have a very high preference
> > to not have to implement RDF-processing to be a conformant
> > implementation. So if we create an RDF vocabulary, it should be only
> > one serialization of our ontology, and support for it should not be
> > mandatory. Do you agree with that?
>
> Yes, I agree. As Doug suggested at the F2F, we can state in the
> recommendation that the RDF representation is not a mandatory part,
> however, if someone uses an RDF representation, it needs to conform
> to the definition in the rec.
>
> > All questions we discuss below about subproperties are IMO independent
> > of the question "RDF or not".
>
> I agree.
>
> Best regards,
> Werner
>
> > > More specifically sub properties will either inevitably go
> further in
> > > the direction of one existing vocabulary (then why not adopt) or
> > > diverge hence significantly reducing the chances oif mapping in
> > profit
> > > of a 'nice new vocabulary'. By the way, by which magic this
> group in
> > > particular would come with the super nice new solution? All
> those we
> > > are mapping to tried to achieve that goal.
> > I absolutely agree that we face these risks. However, as you said, we
> > aim at mapping existing formats. If we do not consider subproperties,
> > we can only map on a very coarse level, leaving it to the application
> > developer to handle the semantics of subproperties coming from
> > different formats. In my opinion supporting a defined set of
> > subproperties is useful for the following reasons:
> >
> > - Allowing users of the API to have well defined semantics of
> > subproperties independent of the source format. If the
> subproperties of
> > a property agree in many of the formats, then we do not invent
> anything
> > new and we do not complicate mapping for these formats. If they do not
> > match, we have to decide which format to follow and map the others.
> >
> > - There are cases where properties are defined on a different
> > granularity level. In a format like MPEG-7, we could say we just
> map to
> > creator, and leave the subproperty to a role classification scheme.
> > However, ID3 for example has distinct properties for composer, text
> > writer, etc., so in such a case we have to make a decision about
> how to
> > map to subproperties of creator.
> >
> > - All subproperties that we do not define in our set can still be
> > passed on, leaving it to the application developer what to do with it,
> > but not losing the information.
> >
> > Best regards,
> > Werner
> >
> > > ________________________________________
> > > De : Pierre-Antoine [pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr
> <mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>]
> > > Date d'envoi : mercredi, 18. novembre 2009 19:00
> > > À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
> > > Cc : 'Felix Sasaki'; Joakim Söderberg; Tobias Bürger; public-media-
> > > annotation@w3.org <mailto:annotation@w3.org>
> > > Objet : 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>
> > > [mailto: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 <mailto: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> <mailto: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>>
> > > > [mailto: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> <mailto:public-media-
> <mailto:public-media->
> > > annotation@w3.org <mailto: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>
> > > > <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>
> > > > <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>
> <mailto: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>
> <mailto: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 ************************************************** *
> > > >
>
>
Received on Friday, 20 November 2009 08:31:18 UTC