RE: Ontology for Media Resource 1.0

Hi Jeff, Felix, Karen,

I have the feeling that the ontology is doing a good job by describing media resources through a minimum set of properties. Some of these properties will themselves likely rely on linked data to use existing resources. On the other hand, from the MAWG perspective, we contribute to the linked data effort by allowing references to media resources with associated descriptive data. I also believe that the notion of media resource is perfectly legitimate in this case (which can be of some particular media types which property is covered by the ontology).

By the way, we are working on an OWL representation of the ontology as we speak.

About e.g. PBCore. Several schemas have been mapped into the ma ontology including e.g. TV-Anytime, Mpeg-7 or EBUCore. This tells two things: 1) PBCore is close to EBUCore and mapping is probably well covered, 2) on behalf of EBU, I wasn't particularly focusing on stored media as there are URI formats that can points to streams in different encapsulation contexts.

I have some difficulty to see what could be the definition of an ontology accounting for linked data?? As I mentioned above the ontology will use and contribute to the linked data effort. What else could/should it be? Can you please clarify?

Jean-pierre






From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Young,Jeff (OR)
Sent: lundi, 26. juillet 2010 20:09
To: Felix Sasaki; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Cc: Karen Coyle; public-xg-lld@w3.org
Subject: RE: Ontology for Media Resource 1.0

Felix,

The ontology's definition for "media resource" says:

A media resource is any physical or logical Resource that can be identified using a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as defined by [RFC 3986]) , which has or is related to one or more media content types.
<http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#media-resource>

Where is the definition for "logical resource"? How should HTTP URIs for logical vs. physical resources behave at the protocol level? This ontology's focus on API use-cases involving "stored digital media" creates blind-spots for how it could be formulated for use by everyone. Please don't invent the concept of "media resource" because the concepts of media type and resource are already well defined in Web standards. Change the ontology to account for Linked Data instead.

Jeff

From: felix.sasaki@googlemail.com [mailto:felix.sasaki@googlemail.com] On Behalf Of Felix Sasaki
Sent: Saturday, July 24, 2010 2:33 AM
To: Young,Jeff (OR)
Cc: Karen Coyle; public-xg-lld@w3.org
Subject: Re: Ontology for Media Resource 1.0

Hi all,

I am participating in the media annotation working group, and I am co-authoring the ontology document. Some background for this thread: as you have seen, the mappings of multimedia formats to a common format (with the prefix "ma") provided in the ontology document current comes in the fashion of a table. This is because one use case for the mappings of existing formats to the "ma" vocabulary is to be information used by an API, as described in the "API for media resources" document, see http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608/ . In that use case, you basically need to know about the mappings and apply them e.g. in API methods like this one http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608/#contributor--interface . That is, you don't need any Semantic Web based machinery to implement this.
Another use case is to provide a mapping using an RDF-based ontology. A task force within the working group is working on that, since there is a heavy demand for this use case as well. Nevertheless it is important that the working group produces a set of mapping which can be used for both use cases and which fulfills both needs - e.g. a browser-centered, let's say JavaScript-API and the application of the mappings for linked data scenarios. It is unfortunate that you don't see the RDF-based ontology yet, but it is on it's way.
Finally let me emphasize that the key to the whole endavour is to get broad consensus about the mappings, no matter if they are expressed as a table or as RDF. So I encourage you to have a detailed look at the mappings and provide comments to the working group.
Regarding Jeff's comment
"It would be even better for Linked Data use if they had added a few more properties like ma:hasGenericDocument, ma:hasWebDocument, and ma:representsRealWorldObject, ..."
The purpose of the "ma" properties is to provide not more information than what is in existing formats.  Of course that does not forbid you to add these properties in a different name space if you expose media objects as linked data. It is just out of scope for the working group.
Regarding Karen's comment: "also note that they don't include one of the metadata schemas for broadcast media: PBCore [1]. Are they only covering stored digital media?" Yes, the focus of the working group is stored digital media. Nevertheless I'd again encourage you to make this comment directly to the working group at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/ . What formats are (not) part of the mappings basically depends on who is making the effort to provide mappings. Finding people for this kind of work is sometimes not easy.

Felix

2010/7/23 Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>
I agree this definition of media resource is a bit broad. Keep in mind
this is still a "Working Draft" and doesn't have authority yet.

Nevertheless, I think the extension of meaning could become believable
if they took Linked Data (i.e. real things) into account. Sadly, they
don't yet. Adding ma:hasGenericDocument, ma:hasWebDocument, and
ma:representsRealWorldObject properties would be a good start.

Ontologies are the new metadata.

Jeff

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net>]
> Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:45 PM
> To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org<mailto:public-xg-lld@w3.org>
> Subject: Re: Ontology for Media Resource 1.0
>
> I find their definition of media resource to be a bit broad:
>
> "A media resource is any physical or logical Resource that can be
> identified using a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as defined by
> [RFC 3986]) , which has or is related to one or more media content
> types."
>
> I also note that they don't include one of the metadata schemas for
> broadcast media: PBCore [1]. Are they only covering stored digital
> media?
>
> This is something that we will definitely run into -- the content v.
> carrier question. At what point is something "media" rather than "not
> media"? And how do we create metadata where different carriers with
> the same content can be identified and used together? I think this is
> one of the big dilemmas of librarianship today.
>
> kc
> [1] http://pbcore.org<http://pbcore.org/>
>
>
> Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>:
>
> > This ontology looks promising for describing Web resource that are
> > important for LLD:
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/

> >
> >
> >
> > I wonder why they didn't produce any OWL to formalize it
> >
> >
> >
> > It would be even better for Linked Data use if they had added a few
> more
> > properties like ma:hasGenericDocument, ma:hasWebDocument, and
> > ma:representsRealWorldObject,
> >
> >
> >
> > Jeff
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> >
> > Jeffrey A. Young
> > Software Architect
> > OCLC Research, Mail Code 410
> > OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
> > 6565 Kilgour Place
> > Dublin, OH 43017-3395
> > www.oclc.org<http://www.oclc.org/> <http://www.oclc.org<http://www.oclc.org/>>
> >
> > Voice: 614-764-4342
> > Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342
> > Fax: 614-718-7477
> > Email: jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org> <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org<mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Karen Coyle
> kcoyle@kcoyle.net<mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net> http://kcoyle.net<http://kcoyle.net/>
> ph: 1-510-540-7596
> m: 1-510-435-8234
> skype: kcoylenet
>




-----------------------------------------
**************************************************
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
**************************************************