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

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

From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 13:07:01 +0100
Message-ID: <AANLkTin82QX=3mNtOG85j9M5K7fZL+GfctpxXCSqdACU@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
Cc: Media Annotation <public-media-annotation@w3.org>

2010/9/14 RaphaŽl Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>:
>> 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.

OK - this is much clearer. The email was fairly misleading, in that it
looks like the only input you were asking from the SW CG was about
serialisation (when we apparently both agree that the model was wrong
in the first place).

Kind regards,

> 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 12:07:34 UTC

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