W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > February 2005

Re: [Image] How to identify images in an RDF context

From: Karl Dubost <karl@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 22:58:46 -0500
Message-Id: <d601ad9dbdd6f854889f824c30b954b0@w3.org>
Cc: semantic-web@w3.org
To: Richard Newman <r.newman@reading.ac.uk>


Le 09 févr. 2005, à 19:07, Richard Newman a écrit :
>> b. How do I identify the image ? a urn (which kind?) or an http uri?
>> 	<http://example.org/photo/2005/02/06/foo.jpg> even if the image is 
>> not online.
>
> If the EXIF contains a precise date, that's possible, but you would 
> need some way of mapping back to a file somewhere. I made up a scheme 
> that uses iPhoto's unique IDs, but some URN based on a timestamp might 
> be better. Giving it a URI would only work if you (or rather, the user 
> of the software) has a prefix that they control. Tough one, that. See 
> later answers for more.

timed stamp urn is fine. I think the time in this case is just a way to 
make unique the reference more than any kind of serial number. As it's 
not more practical to have a time stamp than anything else?

> I took/take an FRBR-esque view of things: the photo is an abstract 
> entity

I have to admit that I didn't know about FRBR, and it's why I have 
answered so late. It's because I was trying to find information about 
it online. The specification is here, but the implementations and even 
tutorials not very developed. (Or maybe I have missed the jewel to 
understand everything in FRBR)

And I'm not sure yet to have the entire grip on it. But I understood 
from your text that:

Abstract entity           = RAW image in the camera
canonical representation  = JPEG version
one or more location      = a file somewhere on the disk
other representations     = thumbnails, web, etc.

I have difficult to see why the Abstract entity has to be the bits in 
the camera, it could be why your eye has seen through the camera, it 
can be just the notion of the scene happening that you took in picture? 
But I guess it doesn't really matter.

> Each of these corresponds with one of FRBR's 4 layers, and has its own 
> sets of properties.

but I found:

[[[
Background

FRBR conceptualizes three groups of entities:
	▪ 	 Group 1 consists of the products of intellectual or artistic 
endeavor (e.g., publications).
	▪ 	 Group 2 comprises those entities responsible for intellectual or 
artistic content (a person or corporate body).
	▪ 	 Group 3 includes the entities that serve as subjects of 
intellectual or artistic endeavor (concept, object, event, and place).

The internal subdivision of Group One entities is important as well.  
FRBR specifies that intellectual or artistic products include the 
following types of entities:
	▪ 	 the work, a distinct intellectual or artistic creation
	▪ 	the expression, the intellectual or artistic realization of a work
	▪ 	the manifestation, the physical embodiment of an expression of a 
work
	▪ 	the item, a single exemplar of a manifestation.

FRBR also specifies particular relationships between classes of Group 
One entities:
	▪ 	a work is realized through one or more expressions
	◦ 	each of which is embodied in one or more manifestations
	◦ 	each of which is exemplified by one or more items.
]]] - http://www.oclc.org/research/projects/frbr/default.htm


So my photographs belong to the Group 1
I belong to the Group 2

> I'd highly recommend digging up some stuff on FRBR, it makes this kind 
> of thing much clearer. Note, though, that it still doesn't make it 
> easier to identify the original picture, though if you know the 
> original import location (iPhoto does) you can actually use that as an 
> IFP to identify the abstract entity, skilfully avoiding the problem of 
> giving it a URI! E.g.

For me the original picture is not even the RAW file, because I don't 
keep it, I just have the JPEG file.

> pic:originalImportLocation a owl:InverseFunctionalProperty .
> _b1 a pic:Photo;
>       pic:originalImportLocation <file:///...> .

It's when I see that, that I know why I like RDF because it's visual ;) 
and it's why I prefer to see graphs :)))

> I've done a bit of work on modelling FRBR in RDFS and OWL, which I 
> should also get round to finishing. It might be nice to cast it down 
> to images as an exemplar.

Yes and to give a step by step tutorial of it. That would be really 
nice.


Many thanks for your answer Richard. :)

-- 
Karl Dubost - http://www.w3.org/People/karl/
W3C Conformance Manager
*** Be Strict To Be Cool ***
Received on Wednesday, 16 February 2005 04:12:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 1 March 2016 07:41:44 UTC