Re: RE : Next iteration of the RDF ontology

On 12/03/2010 01:18 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> I was thinking of this but I am not sure that we have any mechanism
> to point to a fragment / region within a picture ->  at least not
> covered by the ontology and I am not even sure about what MFWG has
> done, which would allow their URI to point to one.

Media Fragment URIs allows for rectangular spatial fragments:
http://www.w3.org/TR/media-frags/#naming-space

   pa

>
> Regards,
>
> Jean-Pierre
>
>
> -----Original Message----- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin
> [mailto:pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr] Sent: vendredi, 3.
> décembre 2010 12:29 To: Evain, Jean-Pierre Cc:
> 'tobias@tobiasbuerger.com'; mcsuarez@fi.upm.es;
> public-media-annotation@w3.org Subject: Re: RE : Next iteration of
> the RDF ontology
>
> On 12/03/2010 09:51 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
>> 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).
>
> ehr... an Image can have fragments, namely spatial fragments.
>
> In general, to respond Mari's comment about constraining hasFragment
> is a two side coins... By constraining, we may indeed detect some
> inconsistencies... On the other hand, we might limit the use of the
> ontology in situations that we do not envision right now.
>
> So I would be in favor of leaving the domain and range as is. A
> specific application is of course free to put additional constraints
> to fulfill its needs.
>
> This is a personal opinion though; not necessarily the one of the
> RDF Taskforce or the WG...
>
> pa
>
>
>>
>> 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
>>
>

Received on Sunday, 5 December 2010 21:35:33 UTC