Re: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version

Oh, my bad indeed.
So I *was* mistaken by the class labels.

Ok on the general principle then.
I also agree with JP that RatingProvided (or whatever it is renamed to) 
should not be a subclass of Contributor.

And this amounts to making Rating a class, IMHO.

   pa

On 11/02/2010 11:03 AM, Chris Poppe wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> as I understood a RatingProvider can only give one rating. It is
> connected to an Agent (Person or Organization) through the
> ratingProviderIs property.
> So something like this (?):
>
> :lmdb a ma:Organization ;
>
> :lmdb1 a ma:RatingProvider ;
>            ma:ratingMin 0 ;
>            ma:ratingMax 5;
>            ma:ratingProviderIs lmdb .
>
> :lmdb2 a ma:RatingProvider ;
>            ma:ratingMin 0 ;
>            ma:ratingMax 5 ;
>            ma:ratingProviderIs lmdb.
>
>      :movie1 ma:hasBeenRatedBy :lmdb1 .
>      :lmdb1 ma:ratingValue 3.
>
>      :movie2 ma:hasBeenRatedBy :lmdb2 .
>      :lmdb2 ma:ratingValue 5.
>
>
> Kind regards,
> Chris
>
> Quoting "Pierre-Antoine Champin"<pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>:
>
>> On 11/01/2010 05:43 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
>>> Then I guess the easiest way is to also allow a property linking a
>>> rating provider to a fragment, which our new model allows.
>>
>> I think I agree with Marting and Werner that something there is a
>> problem in the current ontology (and I see it both in
>> TargetAudienceAuthory and RatingProvider).
>>
>> Imagine that I want to state that LinkedMDB rates movie1 3/5 and
>> movie2 5/5 . How would you state that in RDF?
>> As I understand the ontology, this would be
>>
>>    :lmdb a ma:RatingProvider ;
>>          ma:ratingMin 0 ;
>>          ma:ratingMax 5 .
>>
>>    :movie1 ma:hasBeenRatedBy :lmdb .
>>    :lmdb ma:ratingValue 3.
>>
>>    :movie2 ma:hasBeenRatedBy :lmdb .
>>    :lmdb ma:ratingValue 5.
>>
>> which is obviously broken, as the four last triples can be rewritten
>> like that:
>>
>>    :movie1 ma:hasBeenRatedBy :lmdb .
>>    :movie2 ma:hasBeenRatedBy :lmdb .
>>    :lmdb ma:ratingValue 3, 5.
>>
>> Again, the same problem raises with TargetAudienceAuthority.
>>
>> So either I'm mislead by the labels of the ontologies (in which case
>> I suggest they are renamed) or the ontology is broken...
>> I would prefer to write something like
>>
>>    :movie1 ma:hasRating [
>>      ma:ratingValue 3 ;
>>      ma:ratingMin 0 ;
>>      ma:ratingMax 5 ;
>>      ma:hasRatingAuthority :lmdb
>>    ]
>>
>> which is much closer to the Json specified by the API -- and yes, it
>> amounts to define a class for ratings. But frankly, I don't see any
>> other way to convey the same information as the API...
>>
>>    pa
>>
>>>
>>> Don't you think so?
>>>
>>> Regards, JP
>>>
>>> ________________________________________ De : Bailer, Werner
>>> [werner.bailer@joanneum.at] Date d'envoi : lundi, 1. novembre 2010
>>> 17:27 À : Evain, Jean-Pierre; Höffernig, Martin; 'Chris Poppe' Cc :
>>> Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org Objet : RE: ma-ont RDF
>>> latest version
>>>
>>> Dear Jean-Pierre,
>>>
>>> I agree that describing rating providers is out of scope of MAWG. The
>>> motivation behind Martin's comment was the following scenario: Assume
>>> you have one RDF graph that containing the description of media
>>> resource and its fragments (resources themselves). Different of the
>>> fragments got different ratings from the same provider - how could
>>> you describe that? hasRated would always point to the same
>>> RatingProvider instance.
>>>
>>> Best regards, Werner
>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Evain, Jean-Pierre
>>>> [mailto:evain@ebu.ch] Sent: Samstag, 30. Oktober 2010 12:29 To:
>>>> Evain, Jean-Pierre; Höffernig, Martin; 'Chris Poppe' Cc: Tobias
>>>> Bürger; Bailer, Werner; public-media-annotation@w3.org Subject: RE:
>>>> ma-ont RDF latest version
>>>>
>>>> Dear Martin,
>>>>
>>>> As promised, let's continue the discussion about the rating value.
>>>>
>>>> 1. If I understand well, the intention is likely to be able to
>>>> find other resources that the rating provider might have reviewed
>>>> because e.g. a user finds his rating accurate and expect finding
>>>> other content of interest based on the ranking of the rating
>>>> provider. Right? If yes, then the current ontology allows making
>>>> queries on all resources rated by the rating provider even possibly
>>>> adding a filter on certain rating values.
>>>>
>>>> 2. If the intention of your comment is to develop an ontology for
>>>> the description of rating providers listing all their ratings, this
>>>> is not (at least directly - I believe) within the scope of the
>>>> MAWG.
>>>>
>>>> 3. There is a fundamental modelling issue with your proposal to
>>>> have a rating value to which would be associated properties by the
>>>> rating provider definition.  This would require a rating value to
>>>> be a class and it is not advisable (again - I believe) to make a
>>>> class of what is fundamentally a property. A question to help
>>>> sorting this out: would you have a database in which you would
>>>> order the information per rating value (each of them would then
>>>> have an identifier, which could be used to relate to them as
>>>> classes)? - of course I have my own opinion but would like to hear
>>>> yours ;-)
>>>>
>>>> In conclusion, my gut feeling is that the current representation
>>>> is accurate from a modelling perspective. Do you really believe
>>>> that it is not considering my explanations above?
>>>>
>>>> Best regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jean-Pierre ________________________________________ De :
>>>> Höffernig, Martin [Martin.Hoeffernig@joanneum.at] Date d'envoi :
>>>> jeudi, 28. octobre 2010 14:27 À : Evain, Jean-Pierre; 'Chris
>>>> Poppe' Cc : Tobias Bürger; Bailer, Werner;
>>>> public-media-annotation@w3.org Objet : AW: ma-ont RDF latest
>>>> version
>>>>
>>>> Dear Jean-Pierre, Chris and all,
>>>>
>>>> just a few comments regarding the current ontology spec:
>>>>
>>>> Since TargetAudienceAuthority is no longer a sub class of
>>>> Contributor the object property targetAudienceAuthorityIs shouldn't
>>>> be a sub property of contributorIs as well. Leaving this sub
>>>> property relation would infer that the domain of property
>>>> targetAudienceAuthorityIs is Contributor, since Contributor is
>>>> domain of property contributorIs.
>>>>
>>>> As Chris wrote there is no direct connection between a
>>>> MediaResource and the value of TargetAudienceAuthority, the same
>>>> problem/pattern exists between a MediaResource and a given rating
>>>> value. Since a rating value is directly related to a RatingProvider
>>>> (via data property ratingValue), it is not expressible that the
>>>> same RatingProvider rates different MediaResources (or
>>>> MediaFragments) including different rating values. I propose to
>>>> directly connect a rating value to a MediaResource and annotate
>>>> this rating value with additional information (RatingProvider,
>>>> etc.). A new class RatingValue would be necessary for this
>>>> purpose.
>>>>
>>>> Best, Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von:
>>>> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
>>>> annotation-request@w3.org] Im Auftrag von Evain, Jean-Pierre
>>>> Gesendet: Montag, 25. Oktober 2010 10:11 An: 'Chris Poppe' Cc:
>>>> Tobias Bürger; Bailer, Werner; Davy Van Deursen; public-media-
>>>> annotation@w3.org Betreff: RE: ma-ont RDF latest version
>>>>
>>>> Chris,
>>>>
>>>> As below and attached... Hope this answers the questions and
>>>> needs.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Jean-Pierre
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Chris Poppe
>>>> [mailto:Chris.Poppe@UGent.be] Sent: dimanche, 24. octobre 2010
>>>> 21:10 To: Evain, Jean-Pierre Cc: Tobias Bürger; Bailer, Werner;
>>>> Davy Van Deursen; public-media- annotation@w3.org Subject: RE:
>>>> ma-ont RDF latest version
>>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>> congrats with the excellent work, seems like we have a real
>>>> ontology instead of a property list now :).
>>>>
>>>> Some remarks: In the ontology specification the location property
>>>> is defined as the location where a resource is created, developed,
>>>> recorded, or otherwise authored. Currently the ontology scheme only
>>>> has a depictedLocation. So maybe a ObjectProperty createLocation
>>>> could be added? I guess the depicted location is not in the
>>>> ontology specification since it could be described using the
>>>> "description" property?
>>>>
>>>> JPE: Although a location could be described in 'description', it is
>>>> the function of location to do this also as a linked data hook (and
>>>> I would says it would make more sense to insist on what is shown
>>>> that where it was developed?!?!). But how? It seems the semantics
>>>> gives a list of properties. We could have a general property like
>>>> 'hasRelatedLocation' (which would be as vague as the way it is
>>>> currently defined) as a placeholder to Develop a series of
>>>> subproperties: depicted, created, developed, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could isImageRelatedTo be made a subproperty of isRelatedTo?
>>>>
>>>> JPE: No, not the same domain. But hasRelatedImage could be.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could the link between the Data Property relation and the Object
>>>> Peropty isRelatedTo be formalized somehow? E.g., if a MediaResource
>>>> is used as the range of a isRelatedTo objectproperty, it implies
>>>> that a relation data property should exist with the URI of that
>>>> MediaResource?
>>>>
>>>> JPE: Good point.  Actually, if the 'relation' is e.g. 'source'
>>>> (the source from which the mediaresource is derived) , then 'source
>>>> should be a subproperty of isRelatedTo. I have used this as an
>>>> example and removed the 'relation' dataproperty.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no direct connection between a MediaResource and the
>>>> TargetAudienceAuthority. Do I interpret it correct that to express
>>>> that an organization has given a classification "adult" to a
>>>> mediaResource, we express this as: a_MediaResource hasContributor
>>>> a_TargetAudienceAuthority; a_TargetAudienceAuthority
>>>> targetAudienceAuthorityIs a_Organization; a_TargetAudienceAuthority
>>>> targetAudience "Adult";
>>>>
>>>> JPE: 1/ Yes, a few relations to some contributors were missing
>>>> inc. targetAudienceAuthority 2/ Yes again, the only way to express
>>>> different targetAudience e.g. using different target audience
>>>> schemes was to use the trick of linking the property to the
>>>> authority. BTW, I would suggest the authority is no longer a
>>>> subclass of contributor ->   agree?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think there is something missing to state that a MediaFragment is
>>>> a fragment of a specific MediaResource (maybe isFragmentOf and
>>>> hasFragment Object properties).
>>>>
>>>> JPE: Yes
>>>>
>>>> Maybe it's better to remove the namedFragmentUri data property and
>>>> create a fragmentName data property (like the fragmentRole
>>>> property). This way a namedFragment is a MediaFragment with a
>>>> fragmentName and the URI can be retrieved through fragmentUri.
>>>>
>>>> JPE: That's what I suggested in a previous mail. Actually I
>>>> corrected the existing mediaFragmentName data property into
>>>> fragmentName. I have now kept only locator and renamed fragmentUri
>>>> into fragmentLocator (or we change locator in mediaResourceUri
>>>> :-).
>>>>
>>>> Kind regards, Chris
>>>>
>>>> Quoting "Evain, Jean-Pierre"<evain@ebu.ch>:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Thierry,
>>>>>
>>>>> Almost a week without additional comment. I would therefore
>>>>> suggest that this becomes the new version of our RDF ontology.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks in advance for uploading it and replace the current
>>>>> published
>>>> version.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jean-Pierre
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: Evain, Jean-Pierre Sent:
>>>>> vendredi, 15. octobre 2010 06:19 To: Evain, Jean-Pierre; Tobias
>>>>> Bürger; Bailer, Werner Cc: Davy Van Deursen;
>>>>> public-media-annotation@w3.org Subject: RE : ma-ont RDF latest
>>>>> version
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> this is the new version with MediaFragment as a subclass of
>>>>> MediaResource, validated as OWL-DL.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please check and feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jean-Pierre
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________ De : Evain, Jean-Pierre
>>>>> Date d'envoi : vendredi, 15. octobre 2010 02:09 À : Tobias
>>>>> Bürger; Bailer, Werner Cc : Davy Van Deursen;
>>>>> public-media-annotation@w3.org Objet : RE : ma-ont RDF latest
>>>>> version
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Tobias, all,
>>>>>
>>>>> There seem to be concensus. I'll work on a new version.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was thinking about namedFragment. Although the MFWG makes this
>>>>> disctinction, I wonder if we need to in MAWG as we would have a
>>>>> property 'name' that be be documented or not.  Then the URI
>>>> attributed
>>>>> to the fragment would use an MFWG format or another,
>>>>> accordingly.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope I'll find 5 minutes to do this today during my various
>>>> meetings.
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Jean-Pierre
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________ De : Tobias Bürger
>>>>> [tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at] Date d'envoi : jeudi, 14.
>>>>> octobre 2010 18:20 À : Bailer, Werner Cc : Evain, Jean-Pierre;
>>>>> Davy Van Deursen; public-media-annotation@w3.org Objet : Re:
>>>>> ma-ont RDF latest version
>>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>> given the definition of MF cited below, it makes sense to model
>>>>> MF
>>>> like that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best,
>>>>>
>>>>> Tobias
>>>>>
>>>>> Am 14.10.2010 15:34, schrieb Bailer, Werner:
>>>>>> Dear Davy, Jean-Pierre, all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I agree with the proposal that a media fragment is a subclass
>>>>>> of media resource.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Actually, this a clean way of modeling it, as we anyway
>>>>>> couldn't prevent someone from expressing that by using a MFURI
>>>>>> as the URI of
>>>> a
>>>>>> media resource.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best regards, Werner
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From:
>>>>>>> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
>>>>>>> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Evain, Jean-Pierre
>>>>>>> Sent: Donnerstag, 14. Oktober 2010 15:25 To: Davy Van
>>>>>>> Deursen Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org Subject: RE :
>>>>>>> ma-ont RDF latest version
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Davy,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thank for summarsing the semantics, that will help me
>>>>>>> answering the question... (I hope :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [[ Therefore, we should first look at the definition of a
>>>>>>> media resource [1] and I believe that a media fragment falls
>>>>>>> under that definition (if not, please clarify why not): " A
>>>>>>> media resource is any physical or logical Resource that can
>>>>>>> be identified using a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as
>>>>>>> defined by [RFC 3986]) , which has or is related to one or
>>>>>>> more media content types."  More specifically, a media
>>>>>>> fragment is a physical
>>>> resource,
>>>>>>> with a media content type (i.e., the same as its parent
>>>>>>> resource) and can be identified using a URI (i.e., a Media
>>>> Fragments
>>>>>>> URI).]]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is effectively the key question and I would inviote the
>>>>>>> whole MAWG to consider this question.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My first intention would have been to have media fragment as
>>>>>>> a subclass of media resource composed of audio and video
>>>>>>> tracks. If
>>>> we
>>>>>>> all adopt and recognise more specifically that a fragment is
>>>>>>> a
>>>> media
>>>>>>> resource which is iodentified by a MFURI I am happy with this
>>>>>>> but the group needs to confirm what the mediaFragment is.
>>>>>>> Then we could name (namedFragment, itself a subclass of
>>>>>>> fragment) and keyword a fragment and give him a URI. That
>>>>>>> would be 'clean'.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then  if the question arises of whether a media fragment is
>>>>>>> a subclass of media resource, I would answer that any media
>>>>>>> resource is an atomic media fragment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In other words, I personally can agree with what you suggest
>>>>>>> but would like to hear from the group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Tobias and team, what do you think?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Best regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Jean-Pierre -----------------------------------------
>>>>>>> ************************************************** 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
>>>>>>> **************************************************
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ================================================================
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>> ************************************************** 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
>>>>> **************************************************
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -- Ghent University - Multimedia Lab Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41
>>>> B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
>>>>
>>>> tel: +32 9 264 89 17 fax: +32 9 264 35 94 e-mail:
>>>> Chris.Poppe@ugent.be
>>>>
>>>> URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Ghent University - Multimedia Lab
> Sint-Pietersnieuwstraat 41
> B-9000 Ghent, Belgium
>
> tel: +32 9 264 89 17
> fax: +32 9 264 35 94
> e-mail: Chris.Poppe@ugent.be
>
> URL: http://multimedialab.elis.ugent.be
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 2 November 2010 10:08:09 UTC