Re: Ontology for Media Resource 1.0

Hi all,

I am participating in the media annotation working group, and I am
co-authoring the ontology document. Some background for this thread: as you
have seen, the mappings of multimedia formats to a common format (with the
prefix "ma") provided in the ontology document current comes in the fashion
of a table. This is because one use case for the mappings of existing
formats to the "ma" vocabulary is to be information used by an API, as
described in the "API for media resources" document, see
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608/ . In that use case,
you basically need to know about the mappings and apply them e.g. in API
methods like this one
http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/WD-mediaont-api-1.0-20100608/#contributor--interface
.
That is, you don't need any Semantic Web based machinery to implement this.
Another use case is to provide a mapping using an RDF-based ontology. A task
force within the working group is working on that, since there is a heavy
demand for this use case as well. Nevertheless it is important that the
working group produces a set of mapping which can be used for both use cases
and which fulfills both needs - e.g. a browser-centered, let's say
JavaScript-API and the application of the mappings for linked data
scenarios. It is unfortunate that you don't see the RDF-based ontology yet,
but it is on it's way.
Finally let me emphasize that the key to the whole endavour is to get broad
consensus about the mappings, no matter if they are expressed as a table or
as RDF. So I encourage you to have a detailed look at the mappings and
provide comments to the working group.
Regarding Jeff's comment
"It would be even better for Linked Data use if they had added a few more
properties like ma:hasGenericDocument, ma:hasWebDocument, and
ma:representsRealWorldObject, ..."
The purpose of the "ma" properties is to provide not more information than
what is in existing formats.  Of course that does not forbid you to add
these properties in a different name space if you expose media objects as
linked data. It is just out of scope for the working group.
Regarding Karen's comment: "also note that they don't include one of the
metadata schemas for broadcast media: PBCore [1]. Are they only covering
stored digital media?" Yes, the focus of the working group is stored digital
media. Nevertheless I'd again encourage you to make this comment directly to
the working group at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/ . What formats
are (not) part of the mappings basically depends on who is making the effort
to provide mappings. Finding people for this kind of work is sometimes not
easy.

Felix

2010/7/23 Young,Jeff (OR) <jyoung@oclc.org>

> I agree this definition of media resource is a bit broad. Keep in mind
> this is still a "Working Draft" and doesn't have authority yet.
>
> Nevertheless, I think the extension of meaning could become believable
> if they took Linked Data (i.e. real things) into account. Sadly, they
> don't yet. Adding ma:hasGenericDocument, ma:hasWebDocument, and
> ma:representsRealWorldObject properties would be a good start.
>
> Ontologies are the new metadata.
>
> Jeff
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karen Coyle [mailto:kcoyle@kcoyle.net]
> > Sent: Friday, July 23, 2010 2:45 PM
> > To: Young,Jeff (OR)
> > Cc: public-xg-lld@w3.org
> > Subject: Re: Ontology for Media Resource 1.0
> >
> > I find their definition of media resource to be a bit broad:
> >
> > "A media resource is any physical or logical Resource that can be
> > identified using a Uniform Resource Identifier (URI), as defined by
> > [RFC 3986]) , which has or is related to one or more media content
> > types."
> >
> > I also note that they don't include one of the metadata schemas for
> > broadcast media: PBCore [1]. Are they only covering stored digital
> > media?
> >
> > This is something that we will definitely run into -- the content v.
> > carrier question. At what point is something "media" rather than "not
> > media"? And how do we create metadata where different carriers with
> > the same content can be identified and used together? I think this is
> > one of the big dilemmas of librarianship today.
> >
> > kc
> > [1] http://pbcore.org
> >
> >
> > Quoting "Young,Jeff (OR)" <jyoung@oclc.org>:
> >
> > > This ontology looks promising for describing Web resource that are
> > > important for LLD:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I wonder why they didn't produce any OWL to formalize it
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It would be even better for Linked Data use if they had added a few
> > more
> > > properties like ma:hasGenericDocument, ma:hasWebDocument, and
> > > ma:representsRealWorldObject,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > Jeffrey A. Young
> > > Software Architect
> > > OCLC Research, Mail Code 410
> > > OCLC Online Computer Library Center, Inc.
> > > 6565 Kilgour Place
> > > Dublin, OH 43017-3395
> > > www.oclc.org <http://www.oclc.org>
> > >
> > > Voice: 614-764-4342
> > > Voice: 800-848-5878, ext. 4342
> > > Fax: 614-718-7477
> > > Email: jyoung@oclc.org <mailto:jyoung@oclc.org>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Karen Coyle
> > kcoyle@kcoyle.net http://kcoyle.net
> > ph: 1-510-540-7596
> > m: 1-510-435-8234
> > skype: kcoylenet
> >
>
>
>
>