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

Hi Tobias,

If you can read mine we could use it from now on as you suggest and have a common reference on which we can make changes and test on our differnet tools.

I started from your rdfs file as you can from the extension of my file.

Yes, having a tracking issue page is nice. You can edit the changes from the rev file if you wish as I do not have very much bandwidth and will be travelling during the next two weeks. But as you can see I'll follow this very closely as I believe we ra enow working on an ontology ;-)

Best regards,

Jean-pierre
________________________________
De : Tobias Bürger [tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at]
Date d'envoi : samedi, 12. juin 2010 12:02
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc : vmalaise; Chris.Poppe@UGent.be; Bailer, Werner; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : Re: RE : [mawg] [rdfs taskforce] action-249: RDFS version of ma-ont availble

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: http://www.salzburgresearch.at/~tbuerger/ma-ont.owl

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,

Tobias

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<mailto:vmalaise@few.vu.nl>]
Date d'envoi : vendredi, 11. juin 2010 17:16
À : Chris.Poppe@UGent.be<mailto:Chris.Poppe@UGent.be>
Cc : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Bailer, Werner; Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org<mailto: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<mailto:tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>
A-5020 Salzburg | AUSTRIA         http://www.salzburgresearch.at

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

Received on Saturday, 12 June 2010 17:00:10 UTC