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

Response to your LC Comment -2398 on Media Ontology spec

From: Thierry MICHEL <tmichel@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2010 08:50:33 +0200
Message-ID: <4CA2E1B9.2080303@w3.org>
To: jmcf@tid.es
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Dear Jose,

The Media Annotations Working Group has reviewed the comments you sent 
[1] on the Last Call Working Draft [2] of the Ontlology for Media 
Resource 1.0 published on 08 June 2010.
Thank you for having taken the time to review the document and to send 
us comments.

The Working Group's response to your comment is included below.
Please review it carefully and *let us know by email at 
public-media-annotation@w3.org if you agree with it* or not before 
deadline date [09-oct-2010].
In case of disagreement, you are requested to provide a specific 
solution for or a path to a consensus with the Working Group.
If such a consensus cannot be achieved, you will be given the 
opportunity to raise a formal objection which will then be reviewed by 
the Director during the transition of this document to the next stage in 
the W3C Recommendation Track.


For the Media Annotations Working Group,
Thierry Michel,
W3C Team Contact

2. http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-10-20100608/

MAWG Resolution:

As it is mentioned in the Ontology for Media Resource 1.0, Status of 
this Document section; "The Working Group expects to advance this 
specification to Recommendation Status".

By "our lightweight approach to mappings", I assume that you refer to 
the lack of formal semantics or of (recommendation of) use of OWL 
constructs in the document. Our definition of Ontology is equally 
lightweight: a shared and agreed-upon set of classes and properties. As 
we do not enforce these classes and properties to be modeled in OWL, we 
also described the mappings with as few semantic commitments as 
possible: the mappings can be implemented in XSLT, in Java or whatever 
language/paradigm a user might be interested in. The mappings are 
therefore described in simple prose. An RDF version of the Media 
Ontology is being produced in the Working Group, and an RDF/OWl version 
of the mappings can also be considered, but formal and strong OWL 
constructs are very constraining in semantics, and hard to maintain in a 
consistent manner between vocabularies we have no control over. We 
therefore decided to describe the mappings, still in prose, but with 
reference to the SKOS vocabulary rather than in terms of OWL constraints."

The mappings tables included in the Ontology specification are 
established from the Media Ontology's core properties to various 
multimedia metadata formats. This list of formats is not closed, nor 
does it pretend to be exhaustive. A future publication of this 
specification may include additional mappings if a need or use case is 
established for these new mappings.

You will read this statement in the Ontology specification.

To respond to you further email
The current mapping tables will be included in the Media Ontology 
Recommendation into a normative section. To keep this list of formats 
open, we also plan to track future mappings in an informative WG Note to 
allow description of mappings for future formats. These mappings may 
serve as input for a future version of a Media Ontology Resources 
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2010 06:51:27 UTC

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