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


From: Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 09:36:52 +0200
To: 'RaphaŽl Troncy' <raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr>
CC: 'Yves Raimond' <yves.raimond@gmail.com>, Tobias BŁrger <tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <7D1656F54141C042A1B2556AE5237D60010CEEB7F285@GVAMAIL.gva.ebu.ch>
What is ma-ont (not me, isn't it) trying to achieve? That is the question !  

My question was of course asked in this context (public-media-annotation@w3.org?). I hope experts in this group have views on this. 

If the task is about searching content of interest through different angles reflected by the ontology properties across different namespaces linked to ma-ont through mapping, then I interpret from your response that FULL should maybe not be used to maximise searchability resulting in more positive accurate hits. 

We all know this can be avoided by not using certain properties. The use of rdfs:literal may also be an alternative to punning leaving the choice to enter e.g. a URI (link to a SKOS concept although there is more to say about not using a concept class) or string.

DL it is?

I had a look at OWL-2 and its different profiles. QL would seem to be the right profile. However, I still need to look at some of the restrictions on classes in more details.  I also would need to make sure that tools exist to work on this.


-----Original Message-----
From: RaphaŽl Troncy [mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr] 
Sent: mercredi, 22. septembre 2010 23:39
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: 'Yves Raimond'; Tobias BŁrger; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: OWL FULL or DL?

I certainly didn't want to make this personal, so let's de-passionate 
the debate and talking only on the core matters. You first told us about 
supposed behaviors of FOAF that we have never seen, looking at only what 
is important, the machine readable version of the FOAF ontology (and not 
a particular rendering in a particular tool).

> The point I made is disconnected from this as although this is a old
> debate it seems there are still doubts on what should preferably be
> used for operational implementation.

I point you to precise questions. There are no doubts about operational 
implementation as soon as you know how the ontology will be used, what 
are its purpose. I would not recommend to develop OWL Full ontologies if 
the core matters is to do complex reasoning or if it is important to 
have all the good answers to a query. That's why, I asked you what was 
the purpose of the ontology.

> This is a question for which I
> have much more sympathy than floating in cyberspace using 'cool'
> tools.

Who talked about 'cool' tools or features or whatever?

> Still you neither said anything I didn't know
> nor brought a convincing argument in favour of FULL.

I simply don't understand what are your issues. The question you are 
asking has no general answer, or if you prefer, the answer is "it 
depends" ... thus again, asking clarification, see my questions.
Their only purpose is not to bother you, but just identifying precisely 
what you need to adopt the best technology ... this is also why we have 
flavors and profiles for OWL and OWL2. And by the way, this is the first 
thing that ontology engineering best practices recommend to do (not me 
saying this :-).


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 Thursday, 23 September 2010 07:53:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 16:24:43 UTC