- From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@bbc.co.uk>
- Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 14:11:00 +0100
- To: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
- Cc: Raphaël Troncy <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>, Media Annotation <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hello! > > Yves: how would you see/write an annotation with an event model? An example of that is the tracklist/segment information we publish as RDF on http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes. An example from this morning is http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tpnk4.rdf > 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... > Oh, what I meant was just to, instead of reifying this information a whole graph (which has issues, as pointed out earlier), attaching all that to something like a po:Segment resource. So on a media, you can define a number of segments, using subclasses of something like po:Segment (essentially, you just classify parts of the media): :ApplauseEvent, :LaughterEvent, :AChordPlayedEvent etc. Does that make sense? We use a similar modelling in the Music Ontology as well, and there are a number of examples on the wiki, e.g. http://wiki.musicontology.com/index.php/Structural_annotations_of_%22Can%27t_buy_me_love%22_by_the_Beatles Best, y > Best, > Véronique > > On Sep 14, 2010, at 1:55 PM, Raphaël 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. >> >> Raphaël >> >> -- >> Raphaël Troncy >> EURECOM, Multimedia Communications Department >> 2229, route des Crêtes, 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 13:11:35 UTC