RE: RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology

Dear Mari-Carmen,

Based on the latest version (thanks Tobias ;-), we could effectively be more restrictive and say that MediaFragment isFragmentOf (MediaResource and not Image).

If I have covered  most of your questions in my two mails then I'll work on a version 26. Waiting for confirmation.

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre

From: tobias.buerger@gmail.com [mailto:tobias.buerger@gmail.com] On Behalf Of Tobias Bürger
Sent: vendredi, 3. décembre 2010 08:33
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: mcsuarez@fi.upm.es; Pierre-Antoine Champin; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology

Dear Mari-Carmen,

thanks also from my side for the feedback and thanks to Jean-Pierre for answering your questions!

What I wanted to add is, that you, Mari-Carmen, looked at an old version of the ontology. The most recent version was sent around with this mail: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2010Nov/0130.html

Best regards,

Tobias
2010/12/2 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch<mailto:evain@ebu.ch>>
Hello Mari-Carmen,

Thanks for the feedback.

I'll first try to summarise what the intention was and then we'll come back to your specific points.

The idea of the current class model is:

A MediaResource can be one or more images and /or one or more AV MediaFragment.

By definition, in the model, an AV MediaResource is made of at least one MediaFragment.

A MediaFragment is the equivalent of a segment or in some standards like NewsML-g2 or EBUCore, a part.

A MediaFragment is composed of one or more media components organised in tracks (separate tracks for captioning/subtitling or signing if provided in a separate file): audio, video, captioning/subtitling, signing. There could be other types of tracks like a 'data' track, etc.

Addressing some of your remarks:

- a frame could be a MediaFragment with a duration of one frame and if you wnat to address only the farme as a video frame then the component is the VideoTrack. We could have segment and frame as possible media fragments in the definition
- an image could also be a key frame
- as mentioned above captioning is the same as subtitle and this should be mentioned in the definitions if you think it helps.

For isFragmentOf,  I'll come back to you tomorrow.

It took me 48 hours to return from Paris making me a climatic refugee going from airports to train stations. That's exactly when my main PC decide to crash and doesn't let me log in. I am working from a backup PC on which I don't have the last version of the ontology. SHould be fine by tomorrow ;-)

Best regards,

Jean-Pierre



________________________________________
De : Mari Carmen Suárez de Figueroa Baonza [mcsuarez@fi.upm.es<mailto:mcsuarez@fi.upm.es>]
Date d'envoi : jeudi, 2. décembre 2010 17:17
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc : Pierre-Antoine Champin; public-media-annotation@w3.org<mailto:public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Objet : Re: Next iteration of the RDF ontology

Dear Jean-Pierre and all,

   I took a look to the ontology you sent on 15th November, and I have
a pair of comments (maybe you have already discussed about them, sorry
if this is the case).

- With respect to the Track class and its subclasses (AudioTrack,
Captioning, VideoTrack), I would suggest to complete the comments for
the subclasses, because as it is know is difficult to understand the
meaning of them (for a newcomer). In this context I have a pair of
doubts: is it AudioTrack the same as Segment? is it VideoTrack the same
as Frame? is it Captioning the same as Subtitle? If so, could you
consider to include these labels as synonyms of the existing classes?

- In the case of the relation called "isFragmentOf" (domain:
MediaFragment; range: MediaResource), I was wondering if it would not be
better to extend/modified the current modelling in order to avoid
possible inconsistences (such as "an image having as a fragment a video
track and an audio track").

Thank you very much in advance. Best Regards,

      Mari Carmen.

Evain, Jean-Pierre escribió:
> Dear all,
>
> Following the changes made during TPAC, we have been working with Pierre-Antoine and Tobias to improve the ontology and the mapping to the abstract ontology.
>
> The result of this work is attached. We will suggest a few changes to the abstract ontology to improve the logic of the semantic (date property structure) and also to improve interoperability with the MFWG specification (improving the mediaFragment structure).
>
> You will also notice that we are now more systematic in our approach illustrated by the removal of the contributor class hierarchy (which was there to mimic the abstract structure and help adoption) now implemented through properties.
>
> Pierre Antoine will review the mapping table and we'll update the RDF according to the decisions we make tomorrow.
>
> Cheers, JP (also on behalf on Tobias and Pierre-Antoine)
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------
> **************************************************
> 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
> **************************************************
>

--
----------------------------------------------
 Dr. Mari Carmen Suárez-Figueroa
 Teaching Assistant

 Ontology Engineering Group (OEG)

 Departamento de Inteligencia Artificial
 Facultad de Informática
 Universidad Politécnica de Madrid
 Campus de Montegancedo, s/n
 Boadilla del Monte - 28660 Madrid

 Phone: (+34) 91 336 36 72
 Fax: (+34) 91 352 48 19
 e-mail: mcsuarez@fi.upm.es<mailto:mcsuarez@fi.upm.es>
 Office: 3205
----------------------------------------------



--
___________________________________
Dr. Tobias Bürger
http://www.tobiasbuerger.com