RE: mapping table 2.0

For me it doesn't matter if the Ontology is complex or not as long as the API is simple. But it is of course an advantage if the Ontology is also light weight as long as it can cope with requirement r07: "Introducing several abstraction levels in the ontology". Maybe "dc:source" is enough!

/joakim


-----Original Message-----
From: Eric Carlson [mailto:eric.carlson@apple.com] 
Sent: den 23 februari 2009 16:38
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin; Joakim Söderberg
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Subject: Re: mapping table 2.0


On Feb 23, 2009, at 4:50 AM, Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:

> I'm not sure designing "yet another" ontology of abstraction levels  
> is a
> good idea. Felix already pointed out that FRBR, for example, was not
> entirely satisfactory to the BBC, and that they had to design their  
> own
> abstraction hierarchy.
>
> I would favor a minimalistic approach with a single and very general
> property. For that matter, it seems to me that dc:source [1] is a good
> candidate, and this is what I used in my toy implementation.
>
> More refined abstraction hierarchies could be defined by specializing
> this property and introducing new classes, like the ones in FRBR or in
> the BBC ontology, but I think committing to one or the other would  
> only
> limit the scope of our work.
>
   I agree whole-heartedly - the first version of this spec should  
take as minimalistic an approach as possible.

   I believe a single abstraction layer will be quite powerful, and  
additional complexity can be built on top of this in the next version  
of the spec *if* it proves to be necessary as people use the first  
version of the API.

Eric Carlson
Rich Media Systems - Apple, Inc.

Received on Tuesday, 24 February 2009 09:01:22 UTC