RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties

> But as I understand then; you can only find out the sub-property of
> what you got (e.g. Actor) from a query, and not specify/filter a query
> for a particular sup-property! Is that correct?

If you know that a certain subproperty exists in the source metadata, you could also filter.

Best regards,
Werner


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evain, Jean-Pierre [mailto:evain@ebu.ch]
> Sent: den 23 november 2009 11:22
> To: Joakim Söderberg; Tobias Bürger
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties
> 
> Hi Joakim,
> 
> A lot has happened on this thread since then ;-)
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Jean-pierre
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joakim Söderberg [mailto:joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com]
> Sent: lundi, 23. novembre 2009 11:20
> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre; Tobias Bürger
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: RE: [q] MAWG: Definition of subproperties
> 
> Jean-Pierre,
> We are defining a tool to map with existing formats using a
> standardized vocabulary. The difference to Dublin Core is that our
> vocabulary encompasses semantic relations, such as property
> specifications (exact, related etc.) and sub-properties that are
> hierarchical properties to the core properties.
> 
> I think another difference is that the MAWG Ontology/API had semantic
> web technologies in mind during the designing process, which was not
> available for the DC team. This means that our ontology should be more
> flexible and easy to add/improve mappings over time (for example by
> implmentation using RDF or XSLT)
> 
> /J
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Evain, Jean-Pierre [mailto:evain@ebu.ch]
> Sent: den 18 november 2009 15:02
> To: Joakim Söderberg; Tobias Bürger
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: 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 Monday, 23 November 2009 11:51:12 UTC