- From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
- Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:03:07 +0100
- To: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>
- CC: Chris Poppe <Chris.Poppe@UGent.be>, "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, "Höffernig, Martin" <Martin.Hoeffernig@joanneum.at>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi again,
thinking more about it, it occured to me that you don't need a new
instance of RatingProvider for *every* MediaResource you want to rate...
What you really need is one ID per "value" that a given organization can
give as rating (on a given scale).
So indeed you can do the following:
:lmdb a ma:Organization.
:lmdb3 a ma:RatingProvider ;
ma:ratingValue 3 ;
ma:ratingMin 0 ; ma:ratingMax 5; ma:ratingProviderIs lmdb .
:lmdb5 a ma:RatingProvider ;
ma:ratingValue 3 ;
ma:ratingMin 0 ; ma:ratingMax 5; ma:ratingProviderIs lmdb .
:movie1 :hasBeenRatedBy :lmdb3 .
:movie2 :hasBeenRatedBy :lmdb5 .
:movie3 :hasBeenRatedBy :lmdb3 .
Of course, you don't *have to* do that, so it is not required that every
rating organization provide a single URI for each ratin value. But it is
a possibility.
And now that we are settled on this, I bring back my *other* argument
(while quite restating):
this amounts to representing RatingValues, not exactly RatingProvider.
:)
let's discus this *de visu* in Lyon :)
pa
On 11/02/2010 11:22 PM, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> Pierre Antoine,
>
> Mea culpa, you are right the current model allows only one rating
> value per ratingProvider ID. Chris is right that different Ids are
> needed. Idon't like this very much as it makes ratingProvider act
> like a blank node in between the agent and the ratingValue. But I
> also don't want to have the ratingValue as a class.
>
> I am looking for an alternative.
>
> JP
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2010 08:03:47 UTC