Re: [LC Comment ONT] Comments on the relationships between OM and RDF/OWL

Hello Ivan (personal reply),

I agree with your comment. FYI, there is a task force working on an
RDF-representation of the ontology. It is unfortunate that this work is not
integrated yet in the LC draft, but I am sure the WG will take your comment
into account and integrate that in a subsequent version of the document.

Felix

2010/7/13 Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>

> Dear all,
>
> I was looking at the MO document
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/
>
> From a Semantic Web point of view. I understand that the ontology you
> define is not exclusively for its usage on the Semantic Web, ie, it is not
> only meant to be used in RDF. However, the current document makes it very
> difficult to understand how this vocabulary _could_ be used on the Semantic
> Web if this is what one wants.
>
> The 'mo' terms are defined in
>
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/#core-property-definitions
>
> and you define your own syntax to describe each term. It is, however, not
> clear (to me...) how that syntax translates into RDF if I want to use it
> this way. Indeed, if I look at ma:identifier, it is defined as {
> (identifier:URI), (type:String)? }. But the text does not explain whether I
> have to use
>
> <...> mo:identifier <a-unique-uri>;
>     mo:identifier "somethingelse" .
>
> or whether I have to involve an intermediate node...
>
> To make it more complex, what should I do with ma:location, defined by:
>
> { (name:(URI|String))?, ((longitude:Float), (latitude:Float),
> (altitude:Float), (coordinateSystem:String)?)?, }
>
> does it mean that I have something like
>
> ma:location [
>  ma:name <uri...> ;
>  ma:longitude 1.2344 ;
>  ma:latitude  4.56789 ;
>  ...
>  ]
>
> or something else?
>
> Note that the namespace document at http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont does not
> refer to any RDF or OWL version of the ontology. Ie, on the semantic Web, I
> cannot follow my nose in finding out anything about that vocabulary in terms
> of RDF or OWL.
>
> I do believe an explicit bridge from your document to the Semantic Web is
> needed, in the form of a clear translation of your syntax to RDF,
> corresponding examples, and a proper RDF Schema (or OWL, if necessary) for
> the vocabulary.
>
> I know that the document does include the following remark:
>
> [[[
> This specification provides a simple text description and definition of the
> relationships. An implementation of the vocabulary in RDF [RDF] will be
> provided as an example in the appendix of this specification.
> ]]]
>
> but that appendix is missing. That would be acceptable for a Working Draft;
> I do not think a missing appendix of that sort is acceptable for a Last Call
> document. It is also not clear whether that appendix would be normative or
> not; I believe it should.
>
> Finally, looking at the charter of the Working Group[1], the charter says,
> among other things:
>
> [[[
> Ultimately, users of the ontology should also be able to take advantage of
> Semantic Web technologies, such as the SPARQL Query Language for RDF.
> ]]]
>
> ie, my criticism is also based on the charter obligation of the group...
>
> Sincerely
>
> Ivan
>
> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html
>
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
>
>
>
>
>
>