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

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

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 09:35:18 +0100
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
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>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010D33E58E9F@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
I came to the same conclusion  yesterday evening and it works also for attributing rating to fragments. 

It is true that is is equivalent to stating ratin values although I find it more natural to identify each instance of the rating provider for each rating value he can attribute as it all links back to the agent.

Starting purely from a rating value as a class would not make it easier to link to a provider. 

I therefore still prefer the current model but I feel unconfortable about the mechanisms of ID attributions -> implementation issue I guess or we come back to the need to actually model the rating provider.

See you later.

JP

________________________________________
De : Pierre-Antoine Champin [pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr]
Date d'envoi : mercredi, 3. novembre 2010 09:03
À : Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc : Chris Poppe; Bailer, Werner; "Höffernig, Martin"; Tobias Bürger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Objet : Re: RE : RE : ma-ont RDF latest version

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
-----------------------------------------
**************************************************
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
**************************************************

Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2010 08:36:02 UTC

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