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

RE: [mawg] action-249: Ontology Rev. 7 available

From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Wed, 8 Sep 2010 16:00:08 +0200
To: "'Bailer, Werner'" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, Tobias Bürger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CEEB7F1DA@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
Dear Werner,

In EBUCore schema like in DC, Creator is a class separate from Contributor but this is due to the xml representation and the original DC choices, which may be discussable but must of us have to live with it.

In ma-ont, actor as the same status as creator or publisher. Removing actor is an option and only use contributor but even this may not be as straightforward.  For instance, it remains quite useful to have a role for publisher or creator to refine them. In the case of actor, it could be used to give the character name, which is otherwise not listed in our properties.

Working on RDF could effectively have a severe impact on the ma-ont ontology but the original choice was to build something as less disruptive as possible.

I am currently working on the RDFisation of EBUCore and looking at the mapping issues with ma-ont at the class and property levels. Maybe we'll have time to discuss this at TPAC.

Coming back to the first comment on creator or publisher as a sub-class of contributor.  Making a sparql query on the hasContributedTo or hasContributor would result in a comprehensive list covering all sub-classes.

The entire ontology could be built as a flat list of classes linked one to the other through specific properties. But would we be taking benefit of the strength of the language?

Best regards,


-----Original Message-----
From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Bailer, Werner
Sent: mercredi, 8. septembre 2010 15:41
To: Tobias Bürger
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: AW: [mawg] action-249: Ontology Rev. 7 available

Dear Tobias,

thanks for this draft. I have the following comments:

- As I posted to the list earlier, I wonder why Creator is a subclass of Contributor. In our list of properties they are disjoint, as in some other formats (e.g. EBUCore), in MPEG-7 it's even the other way round (Creator being the superclass): I'm in favour of keeping them separate, as I think it's confusing to model that differently than in our properties definition.

- We should be careful to align the ontology with our list of properties, e.g. Actor is useful as an example, but not defined in our list of properties, thus it should not be included in the official ontology that we publish.

Best regards,

Von: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] im Auftrag von Tobias Bürger [tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 08. September 2010 14:28
An: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Betreff: [mawg] action-249: Ontology Rev. 7 available

  Dear all,

after some discussions in the previous week, we made an update to the
ontology which you can find at

What we changed:
We changed the things to which Pierre-Antoine referred to in his
comments 1 and 3 in
that is, we fixed the properties with multiple domain declarations
(e.g., title and locator) and we adapted the Contributor subclass hierarchy.

Furthermore we added a new property isMadeOf to express that a
MediaResource can be made of Audio - and/or VideoTracks.

I would like to note that we did not change the modelling wrt. to the
restricted use of some properties (.e.g duration does not apply to
Images) as both discussed options have their drawbacks in the one or
other direction (e.g. when introducing new subclasses of MediaResource
or when adding new properties whose use shall be restricted somehow).
The same arguments as the ones from Pierre-Antoine against the current
solutions can be made with his proposal because what, for instance,

ma:Image rdfs:subClassOf ma:MediaResource, [
     a owl:Restriction ;
     owl:onProperty ma:duration ;
     owl:cardinality 0

tells us is, that Images are MediaResources which do not have a duration
property. This gives imho also gives a wrong impression.

I had a discussion internally in my group and without telling them what
options are being discussed at the moment, most of them favored the
modelling which we currently have in our version.
Both aspects lead me to the conclusion that I keep this part of our
ontology as it is for now. Unless new arguments or majority votes
against our current modelling pop up :-)

Any feedback is again highly welcome!

@Thierry: If there are no objections you might publish this draft in the
W3C web space.

Best regards,


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
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2010 14:01:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:42 UTC