- From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 14:17:27 +0100
- To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hi Everyone! Find below a summary of what we discussed today about the RDF-isation of the MAWG ontology. The mentioned paper can be found at: http://ceur-ws.org/Vol-539/paper_21.pdf Best, Véronique A good starting point for thinking of the modeling options for our ontology is the SemuDate 2009 paper; the implementation should be as simple as possible. The ontology shall be implemented on two "levels". The first level defines the properties defined in the MAWG ontology usings labels and comments and gives them a namespace that people can use to describe their media resources. The second level defines the terms used in the MAWG ontology by grounding them on the existing metadata formats using the mappings expressed in the course of the work of the group. A good option would be to have a systematic representation of our properties and mappings in HTML, so that an automatic conversion process could be applicable. The questions are: which HTML representation should we adopt, and what do we do for the mappings towards vocabularies that have no (official) RDF/OWL version? Do we ignore them, or represent them in the W3C space?
Received on Tuesday, 16 March 2010 13:18:56 UTC