- From: Chris Poppe <Chris.Poppe@ugent.be>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:54:09 +0200
- To: "'Evain, Jean-Pierre'" <evain@ebu.ch>, 'Tobias Bürger' <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, <johns@postech.ac.kr>
- Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <01d901cb0932$e4e50460$aeaf0d20$@Poppe@ugent.be>
In the RDFS ontology, I assume that Audio and Image, should also be subclassed from MediaResource. General comments, starting from the Ontology document [1]: · Should the ontology more closely represent the “ontology” described in the Ontology document? · The ma:identifier property holds both the actual id and a category of the identifier (see [1]). So would it make sense to make identifier an ObjectProperty pointing to an Identifier Class, which has two dataproperties ( id, range: URI and type, range: String)? · The same holds for title and all other “subtype properties”. I read somewhere that you want to use subproperties for types of titles. E.g., make mainTitle a subproperty of the title dataproperty? It would be good to add such a subproperty already to the ontology. · I find it strange that Persons and organizations are subclasses of Creators, Publishers, and Contributors. IMO this makes no sense, because this states that all persons are Creators, Publishers and Contributors… I would prefer to include Agent taking Persons, Organizations as subclass (like in FOAF). (Is there a reason for not reusing FOAF classes?). Additionally, I would make Contributor a subclass of Agent. So if we have a Person Instance Person_0 and add a MediaResource_0 hasContributor Person_0 it can be deduced that Person_0 is both a person and contributor (the same is possible for organizations). · How is the role defined for contributors/creators? · When I open the ontology in Protégé, I see the Person classes at different places, is it necessary to explicitly state that Person is a subclass of Thing , or was this generated automatically? · How will the different types of dates be defined? · Could you give an example of instance data for the SKOS:Concept used for genre/keyword/rating/targetaudience? · For the collections, inverse properties would be usefull · For the fragments, how about making MediaFragment a subclass from MediaResource? · Add a label dataproperty, range:string to the NamedMediaFragment Class · Add the technical properties to the correct subclass of MediaResource (e.g., frameWidth and frameHeight for Image and Video, samplingRate for Audio) · I think it would be nice to add annotations to the different classes, properties, and so on. · Should these tracks be included as separate classes? Are these also MediaResources, or even MediaFragments? The ontologydoc does not include information on the tracks themselves, only on the number J Some comments on Jean-Pierre’s comments I added inline below ([CP]) Kind regards, Chris [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/ From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre Sent: maandag 7 juni 2010 11:32 To: 'Tobias Bürger'; johns@postech.ac.kr Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org Subject: RE: [mawg] [rdfs taskforce] action-249: RDFS version of ma-ont availble Hello Tobias, A few comments: - When looking at the ontology in Protégé, datatype like integer appear as classes… That is weird. [CP] I don’t have this problem, Which version of Protégé are you using? - This is why you have what I believe is a wrong use of 'object properties'. For example, bitrate should be a dataproperty of media resource instantiated by an integer (not a float ;-) [CP] (In the version that I see online, bitrate is a dataproperty) In fact, the ontology document states that bitrate is a Float, maybe we should also rename this property to averageBitrate as in the ontology document? - Language is not a class but an object property linking to a SKOS concept or a data property linking to a string -> the same for e.g. compression, format, genre, keyword, rating and targetAudience [CP] In the version I have, language is a dataproperty, so I am beginning to think that I am reviewing a revised version? - Person should also be a subclass of Actor and probably organisation could also appear where person is. - The flattest the better: I would avoid nesting too much things like audio/video, tracks and then audio/video tracks - partOfCollection could be replaced by a more generic isMemberOf - relation would sound better like isRelatedTo and all Dublin Core relation could be subproperties - For the datatype of samplingRate, we often use rationals, which don't exist in RDF -> float? - Some properties are functional - Some properties are inverse, which I believe needs to be completed by proper object properties - Time to think of appropriate inverse properties for more inference I have put a revised version here: http://www.ebu.ch/metadata/ontologies/W3C_MAWG/ma-ont-rev.rdfs.xml To be discussed J Regards, Jean-Pierre From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Tobias Bürger Sent: jeudi, 3. juin 2010 08:03 To: johns@postech.ac.kr Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org Subject: Re: [mawg] [rdfs taskforce] action-249: RDFS version of ma-ont availble Hi John, starting next week is fine - every review is more than welcome! Thank you in advance! Best regards, Tobias Am 03.06.2010 03:08, schrieb Strassner John Charles: Hallo Tobias, I am happy to provide a review of both the RDFS and OWL documents; however, I cannot start the review until next week. I hope that is OK. regards, John --- Original Message --- >From : "Tobias Bürger" <mailto:tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at> <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at> To : <mailto:public-media-annotation@w3.org> "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <mailto:public-media-annotation@w3.org> <public-media-annotation@w3.org> Date : 2010/06/02 Wednesday PM 5:51:18 Subject : [mawg] [rdfs taskforce] action-249: RDFS version of ma-ont availble Dear all, I have now also uploaded the RDFS version of the first implementation of ma-ont. You can find it here: http://www.salzburgresearch.at/~tbuerger/ma-ont.rdfs Browsable version: http://liris.cnrs.fr/~pchampin/wsgi/t4r/?tu=ontoview.html <http://liris.cnrs.fr/~pchampin/wsgi/t4r/?tu=ontoview.html&r=http%3A//www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont&gu=http%3A//www.salzburgresearch.at/~tbuerger/ma-ont.rdfs> &r=http%3A//www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont&gu=http%3A//www.salzburgresearch.at/~tbuerger/ma-ont.rdfs I am still looking for a volunteer to provide a review and to suggest changes, extensions, etc. for both RDFS and OWL versions of ma-ont. Thanks. Best regards, Tobias -- ================================================================ Dr. Tobias Bürger Knowledge and Media Technologies Group Salzburg Research FON +43.662.2288-415 Forschungsgesellschaft FAX +43.662.2288-222 Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/III tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at A-5020 Salzburg | AUSTRIA http://www.salzburgresearch.at <http://mail.postech.ac.kr:80/receiveMDNResponse.do?from=johns@postech.ac.kr&to=public-media-annotation@w3.org&mid=30840218.1275523731764.JavaMail.root%40mail1.postech.ac.kr&store=%2Fstore02%2Fmindex%2F989%2Fjohns&host=mail.postech.ac.kr> -- ================================================================ Dr. Tobias Bürger Knowledge and Media Technologies Group Salzburg Research FON +43.662.2288-415 Forschungsgesellschaft FAX +43.662.2288-222 Jakob-Haringer-Straße 5/III tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at A-5020 Salzburg | AUSTRIA http://www.salzburgresearch.at
Received on Friday, 11 June 2010 06:54:47 UTC