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

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

From: Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>
Date: Sat, 12 Jun 2010 12:02:56 +0200
Message-ID: <4C135B50.7020100@salzburgresearch.at>
To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
CC: vmalaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, "Chris.Poppe@UGent.be" <Chris.Poppe@UGent.be>, "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hello Jean-Pierre, all,

I just returned from holidays and have to stick up with the discussion 
happening here. So, apologies for not taking part in the discussions.

So first of all: there must have been some syntax issues with Protege 
because I defined datatype and object properties and did not define 
datatypes as classes; See my OWL file.
I made two files: one RDFS and one OWL, I guess you would not have had 
the syntax issues with the OWL version: 
Is this the changed file you refer to: 
http://www.ebu.ch/metadata/ontologies/W3C_MAWG/ma-ont-rev.rdfs.xml ?
Using owl:datatype and owl:objectproperties here means that we focus on 
the OWL version of the ontology from now on -> this is fine for me.

I agree to the changes in the ranges of some datatype properties and the 
changes in subclass hierarchies for the concepts defined that you did 
(your restructuring).

I agree to Veroniques previous comment, that we should remove the 
FunctionalProperty type for some properties again.

For the frameSize discussion, I would personally stick to the two 
properties which I defined; because having a framesize class does not 
make much sense for me as well (because this class will only have two 
properties and that's it).

Is it OK that we continue with your version now, Jean-Pierre, and then 
see which comments from Werner, Chris, and Veronique we should implement 
from here on?  If yes, I will compile an issues page in the WIKI which 
we probably can discuss in one of the next telcos. ((But maybe 
everything has been handled and I am just overwhelmed by all emails now.)

Thank you.

Best regards,


Am 12.06.2010 09:03, schrieb Evain, Jean-Pierre:
> Veronique,
> 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,
> Jean-Pierre
> ________________________________________
> 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?
> Best,
> Véronique

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 Saturday, 12 June 2010 10:03:38 UTC

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