RE: MAWG - update RDF

Dear Michel,

thanks for the instructions. We'll follow your recommendations.

I hope the group will agree as the file is otherwsie not validating in particular because of a non persistent refernece from Dublin Core. But I would of course provide you with the detailed information needed for the errata.

I guess we'll need to organise a MAWG call soon.

Best regards,

jean-Pierre
________________________________________
From: Thierry MICHEL [tmichel@w3.org]
Sent: 21 March 2013 20:44
To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
Cc: 'Joakim Soderberg'; public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: MAWG - update RDF

Jean Pierre,


We have those two files included (nested)  in the Ontology for Media
Resources 1.0 Recommendation

http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#ont-owl
http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#ont-ttl

and also published at
http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont.rdf
http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont.ttl


If I update these two files there, then there will be a deferent version
in the Recommendation.

The only way to solve this is to update these two files at
http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont.rdf
http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont.ttl

and publish an errata with these changes at
http://www.w3.org/2012/01/mediaont-10-errata.html


Therefore I need
1- to have the Group to approve these changes.
2- Know the exact changes to update the errata page.

Is this OK ?


Thierry






On 21/03/2013 17:13, Evain, Jean-Pierre wrote:
> Me too and I insist that these are corrections and not changes.
>
> Best, JP
>
> From: Joakim Soderberg [mailto:soderberg.pj@gmail.com]
> Sent: jeudi, 21. mars 2013 16:40
> To: Evain, Jean-Pierre
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: MAWG - update RDF
>
> I hope it gets accepted. Thierry, will this have to be published as a separate version?
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 7:23 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch<mailto:evain@ebu.ch>> wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> A group of MAWG members are making a submission to an RFT from ISO/JPEG proposing to adopt our ma-ont ontology.
>
> This submission contains links to the rdf and ttl files accessible from:
>
> http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont.rdf
> http://www.w3.org/ns/ma-ont.ttl
>
> A couple of corrections have proved to be required with no impact on the ontology structure:
>
> 1/ surprisingly the reference to DublinCore in RDF (e.g. used for comments) was broken and had to be replaced
> 2/ the collectionName property used to be declared as a subclass of rdfs:label but this generates problems. Therefore collectionName is now just a dataProperty like for title, description, etc.
> 3/ we have added a comment saying that the rdf an ttl files take precedence over the specification, which contains a copy of the rdf file (and we think that the corrections made do not justify going through a revision of the specification itself).
>
> This work has been carried out in collaboration with Pierre-Antoine Champin (who also generated the ttl file) and Tobias Buerger.
>
> The corrected files are attached and we have asked Thierry Michel to upload these new versions in place of the existing ones.
>
> We hope that this is agreeable to all members of the MAWG.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jean-Pierre
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> **************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
> **************************************************
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> **************************************************
> This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
> If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
> **************************************************
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

**************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
**************************************************

Received on Friday, 22 March 2013 06:35:12 UTC