W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > June 2010

RE : [mawg] [rdfs taskforce] action-249: RDFS version of ma-ont availble

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 09:03:00 +0200
To: vmalaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, "Chris.Poppe@UGent.be" <Chris.Poppe@UGent.be>
CC: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CD5EC8182@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>

The fact that you mention the functional properties makes me think you are looking at the rev rdfs file, which I produced in revision of the original file from Tobias bringing solutions to all my comments (this is maybe why Chris thought I was speaking of a different version. Actually not but my comments were justifying the changes I made).

Yes, I have introduced some fucntional properties. At least things like an identifier dataproperty shall be functional. For others, I might have been a bit too enthusiastic. I made the rev version in 10 minutes or so... So yes, contributor as functional is most likely over the top.

The most important for me was to restructure tobias' first version and not having only object properties and datatypes as classes, which was really not taking the right direction. From there the discussion is opened. 

However, as I said in previous mail, there are things (which I did myself but now believe are wrong) like grouping properties under artificial classes or blank nodes if not clean. This is something that can only be realised at the time of generating individuals / instances.

Best regards,

De : vmalaise [vmalaise@few.vu.nl]
Date d'envoi : vendredi, 11. juin 2010 17:16
À : Chris.Poppe@UGent.be
Cc : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Bailer, Werner; Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : RE: [mawg] [rdfs taskforce] action-249: RDFS version of ma-ont   availble

Dear all,

I agree with the previous propositions (and the previous comments saying
that the current proposition is a very nice model to start the discussions
with, thanks a lot Tobias for making this step!) for restructuring the
ontology's hierarchy, and for creating Concepts as the range for properties
that require more than one value. I have a question about the "functional
properties", particularly for the contributors: would this not be too
restrictive? Different people contribute to the same media, and the same
person might contribute to multiple medias. I, on the other hand, have this
tendency of fearing the over-commitement, so you might have very good
reasons for having chosen this restriction on some properties?

Received on Saturday, 12 June 2010 07:03:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:41 UTC