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

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

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 03 Nov 2010 09:03:07 +0100
Message-ID: <4CD1173B.7030208@liris.cnrs.fr>
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

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