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

Re: Using the Ontology for Media Resources in the Semantic Web

From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:05:22 +0200
Cc: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>, Media Annotation <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <B123F540-4447-499D-BF46-9C0BFD8A961E@few.vu.nl>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Hi Yves, RaphaŽl,

Yves: how would you see/write an annotation with an event model? Do  
you mean replacing/doubling the ma:relation property by x:hasEvent,  
x:hasTime, x:hasPlace etc? How could we deal with descriptions  
involving multiple places, times and events if we do not integrate  
them in a generic "Event" container, that would bring us back to the  
first issue: how to link a complete graph as an object for a property...


On Sep 14, 2010, at 1:55 PM, RaphaŽl Troncy wrote:

>> I am not sure I understand, indeed - what is the status of that the
>> examples you mentioned above, then?
> It has no status at all. Forget about this example. Its only purpose  
> is to illustrate an issue.
>> Is that something that is likely
>> to make it in the final document?
> Absolutely not. The current situation is that "complex" annotations  
> in the sense I have explained are not possible so there is no reason  
> to have such an example.
>> If you want to tackle the "complex
>> media annotation" scenario, and want to stick to your ma:relation
>> framework, then you will have to use Named Graphs in the way you
>> described it above, which we are apparently both concerned about?
> We come back to the original purpose of my email when I made up this  
> example. Intuitively, I could only think of this "named graph"  
> solution to fulfill this use case but I asked the SW Coordination  
> Group if there were other ways the WG could not think about since  
> the "named graph" does not bring satisfaction.
>> Pointing to a SKOS concept doesn't cause any issues, but pointing  
>> to a
>> Named Graphs relies on some semantics that isn't quite there yet.
> Yes, we know that.
>> Therefore, I am guessing there are only two possible outcomes 1)
>> Dropping the "complex" annotations from the scope of the final
>> document or 2) Move to another scheme than the ma:relation one for
>> complex annotations, which was what I pointed at in my previous  
>> email?
> The purpose of writing an email to the SW CG was exactly to ask for  
> help if there is not a 3rd way I cannot think about yet.
> I think the minutes of the last F2F meeting of the WG summarize well  
> all this discussion.
> Best regards.
>  RaphaŽl
> -- 
> RaphaŽl Troncy
> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department
> 2229, route des CrÍtes, 06560 Sophia Antipolis, France.
> e-mail: raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
> Tel: +33 (0)4 - 9300 8242
> Fax: +33 (0)4 - 9000 8200
> Web: http://www.eurecom.fr/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 14 September 2010 12:06:52 UTC

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