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


From: Florian Stegmaier <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2010 11:23:34 +0200
Message-Id: <F400D949-8FDA-4298-B2D2-DBA65F54F209@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
(just resended this email - i think it has been lost somewhere...if the other email also shows up, sorry for that)

Dear all,

i don´t want to get too deep into this discussion at the moment, but i guess the key problem is, that the scope of the ontology is not yet clear to everybody or was not yet defined in a right way. Maybe we should clearly state what we want to achieve with it (also reflect it into the onto-doc). Maybe this should end the discussion. From my point of view, at the moment it is not more than a vocabulary. Maybe it will be "more", if there is the possibility to store mappings as well - which is afaik also the purpose of it.


Am 23.09.2010 um 11:05 schrieb Evain, Jean-Pierre:

> Thanks for the link Tobias.  This is actually very informative and tells a lot on owl-2.
> As for the version we have now it is DL compliant I would think.  As you know several properties are missing and we need to find a way to accommodate some of the requirements mentioned in the semantics of the terms (e.g. use of rdfs:literal). We are otherwise not using inverse properties so far.  
> The only complexity in the current version is the use of sub-classes and some sub-properties.
> The issues were effectively the use of FOAF (a DL profile / version) would solve most of the problems but we can go our own route (hence what would be the point of developing and ontology but I know you know) and property puns.
> JP
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tobias Bürger [mailto:tobias.buerger@salzburgresearch.at] 
> Sent: jeudi, 23. septembre 2010 10:49
> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc: 'Raphaël Troncy'; 'Yves Raimond'; public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: OWL FULL or DL?
>  Dear all,
> I missed the whole discussion due to traveling, but my two cents which I 
> would like to share on this issue are:
> If the ontology shall only be used as a vocabulary then we need not to 
> care about OWL Full vs. OWL DL. Then we could make it fairly simple and 
> just revert back to the RDF(S) version which was the first I have 
> developed for the group. If we want to define a lot of restrictions in 
> the usage of our vocabulary we have to go for OWL.
> Wrt to including FOAF directly in our ontology: Many others do slightly 
> change/adapt the FOAF ontology to be OWL-DL compliant (if they care 
> because of their application scenario about it). There are a lot of 
> guidelines and discussions on how to do this on the Web.
> The lack of tools should not restrain us from going for an OWL2 profile. 
> You can check this page for tools providing OWL2 support: 
> http://www.w3.org/2007/OWL/wiki/Implementations
> OWL2 vs OWL1: I do not care too much at the moment about this choice, 
> unless we think that we need the newly defined functionality in OWL2.
> Best,
> Tobias
> Am 23.09.2010 09:36, schrieb Evain, Jean-Pierre:
>> 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.
>> Jean-Pierre
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Raphaël Troncy [mailto:raphael.troncy@eurecom.fr]
>> Sent: mercredi, 22. septembre 2010 23:39
>> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
>> Cc: 'Yves Raimond'; Tobias Bürger; 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 :-).
>>    Raphaël
> -- 
> ================================================================
> 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

Dipl. Inf. Florian Stegmaier
Chair of Distributed Information Systems
University of Passau
Innstr. 43
94032 Passau

Room 248 ITZ

Tel.: +49 851 509 3063
Fax: +49 851 509 3062

Received on Thursday, 23 September 2010 10:22:10 UTC

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