Re: SMPTE to MA mapping example

On 05/17/2011 10:27 AM, Bailer, Werner wrote:
> 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.

true! So my restricive interpretation of section 5.2 is contradicted by
section 6. This is therefore a bug in the RDF ontology then, which needs
to be fixed.

  pa

>> 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 19:08:50 UTC