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

Re: AW: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version

From: Chris Poppe <Chris.Poppe@UGent.be>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 15:59:56 +0100
Message-ID: <20101102155956.145911u4q8g9y8a4@webmail.ugent.be>
To: "Höffernig, Martin" <Martin.Hoeffernig@joanneum.at>
Cc: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, "Pierre-Antoine Champin" <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, "Tobias Bürger" <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Please note that this was how I interpreted the current ontology... It  
would be best to get some feedback by the RDF taskforce :)

Kind regards,
Chris

Quoting "Höffernig, Martin" <Martin.Hoeffernig@joanneum.at>:

> Chris, thank you for providing an example!
> I agree that the model is consistent. However, the fact that a  
> RatingProvider can only give one rating is not formalized in the  
> ontology spec yet. A way to achieve this would be to add cardinality  
> restrictions on the concerning properties (ratingValue, ratingMin,  
> ratingMax) in the class defintion of RatingProvider. (Of course  
> cardinaltiy restrictions are OWL constructs and not possible using  
> RDFS only.)
>
> Anyway, if I understand the contributorIs property between a  
> contributor and an agent rightly, than there a 2 different ways for  
> example to describe that a given organisation is both the creator  
> and the publisher of a movie:
>
> Version1:
> :YouTube a ma:Organization .
>
> :YouTube1 a ma:Creator ;
>         ma:creatorIs :YouTube .
>
> :YouTube2 a ma:Publisher .
>       ma:publisherIs YouTube .
>
> :Movie a ma:MediaResource ;_
>       ma:hasCreator :YouTube1 ;
>       ma:hasPublisher :YouTube2 .
>
> Version2:
> :YouTube a ma:Organization .
>
> :YouTube1 a ma:Creator ;
>           a ma:Publisher ;
>         ma:creatorIs :YouTube ;
>         ma:publisherIs :YouTube .
>
> :Movie a ma:MediaResource ;_
>       ma:hasCreator :YouTube1 ;
>       ma:hasPublisher :YouTube1 .
>
> Please correct me if I am wrong with my assumptions.
>
> Best,
> Martin
>
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Bailer, Werner
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. November 2010 11:46
> An: Pierre-Antoine Champin; Chris Poppe
> Cc: Evain, Jean-Pierre; Höffernig, Martin; Tobias Bürger;  
> public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Betreff: AW: RE : ma-ont RDF latest version
>
> OK, I think Martin and I had the same misunderstanding.
>
> In that case I think the model is ok, but it is misleading to call  
> the class RatingProvider, which IMO would be the organisation, here  
> it is rather a rating.
>
> Best regards,
> Werner
>
> ________________________________________
> Von: Pierre-Antoine Champin [pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr]
> Gesendet: Dienstag, 02. November 2010 11:07
> An: Chris Poppe
> Cc: Evain, Jean-Pierre; Bailer, Werner; Höffernig, Martin; Tobias  
> Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Betreff: 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
>>
>>
>>
>
>



-- 
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 15:00:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:44 UTC