- From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 18 May 2010 14:26:09 +0200
- To: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
- Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Yes, sounds good :) Véronique On May 18, 2010, at 2:13 PM, 이원석 wrote: > Hi. Veronique. > Thanks for valuable input :) > How about below sentence? I just revised a little bit. > > "In this recommendation, the vocabulary in question is the list of > core properties (relationships) defined in the ma namespace, and the > machine-readable format is not specified here: the recommendation > provides a simple text description and definition of the > relationships. An implementation of the vocabulary in RDF [1] will > be provided as an example in the appendix of this specification. > Implementations in different formats are nevertheless allowed." > > Best regards, > Wonsuk. > > > -----Original Message----- > From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org > ] On Behalf Of Veronique Malaise > Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:54 PM > To: public-media-annotation@w3.org > Subject: concern about the definition of ontology in the ontology > document > > > Dear all, > > I think that readers of the ontology document > http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html > might have some troubles making the link between the (very correct) > definition of what an ontology is, in section 2, and the proposal of > the group (a list of properties defined in prose, not in a formal > language). The text of the ontology document is copied below, followed > by a line I propose to add to make the link clearer. What do you > think? > > Best regards, > Véronique > > "An ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared, machine- > readable vocabulary and meanings, in the form of various entities and > relationships between them, to describe knowledge about the contents > of one or more related subject domains throughout the life cycle of > its existence. These entities and relationships are used to represent > knowledge in the set of related subject domains. Formal refers to the > fact that the ontology should be representable in a formal grammar. > Explicit means that the entities and relationships used, and the > constraints on their use, are precisely and unambiguously defined in a > declarative language suitable for knowledge representation. Shared > means that all users of an ontology will represent a concept using the > same or equivalent set of entities and relationships. Subject domain > refers to the content of the universe of discourse being represented > by the ontology" > > I propose to add something like: > "In this recommendation, the vocabulary in question is the list of > core properties (relationships) defined in the ma namespace, and the > machine-readable format is not specified here: the recommendation > provides a simple text description and definition of the > relationships. An implementation of the vocabulary in RDF [1] has been > developed in the MAWG RDF? task force [2]. Implementations in > different formats are nevertheless allowed. > > [1] http://www.w3.org/RDF/ > [2]ref to the URL of the document of the modeling task force
Received on Tuesday, 18 May 2010 12:27:43 UTC