RE: SMPTE to MA mapping example

Hi Pierre-Antoine,

> well, section 5.1.2 reads "a resource that the current resource is
> related with" so it is open to interpretation whether the first
> "resource" means "media resource" or not, while the second one clearly
> does...

In response to the first round of LC comments, we also wrote sections 6.2 and 6.3 stating that ma:relation is preferred for linking to subtitles and an option for linking an RDF file containing semantic annotation. Thus in my opinion the ontology document defines relation for all types of resources, not only media resources.

> Although not strongly opposed to relaxing that constraint on
> ma:isRelatedTo, I'm not really in favor either... I would instead
> encourage you to use rdfs:seeAlso in that case.

This is an option. If we choose it, we should explain in the ontology document how to represent relations in RDF depending on the type of resource.

Best regards,
Werner


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pierre-Antoine Champin
> Sent: Montag, 16. Mai 2011 16:44
> To: Höffernig, Martin
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org; Thierry MICHEL
> Subject: Re: SMPTE to MA mapping example
> 
> Hi,
> 
> On 05/12/2011 04:18 PM, Höffernig, Martin wrote:
> > <snip />
> > For example, in the SMPTE document there is a reference to a so
> called
> > production script which is a pdf document. Now it isn‘ t possible to
> > refer to this document using the MA ontology. Therefore I suggest to
> > remove this domain spec form a:isRelatedTo. Moreover in section 5.1.2
> of
> > the Ontology for Media Resources 1.0 document, property relation is
> not
> > restricted to media resources.
> 
> well, section 5.1.2 reads "a resource that the current resource is
> related with" so it is open to interpretation whether the first
> "resource" means "media resource" or not, while the second one clearly
> does...
> 
> Although not strongly opposed to relaxing that constraint on
> ma:isRelatedTo, I'm not really in favor either... I would instead
> encourage you to use rdfs:seeAlso in that case.
> 
> But if there is no other voice against making that change, then why
> not.
> Note that if we do, we also need to remove the fact that ma:isRelatedTo
> is symmetric.
> 
>   pa

Received on Tuesday, 17 May 2011 08:28:04 UTC