Seems like we are near our goal but I will take a short break and I will not available again until next Tuesday so don't expect a response by me until I will back home.
If we will do some changes to ontologies I think that is a good opportunity to solve the issues with nmm:MusicAlbum I commented in other mail: 1. Album cover 2. Album performer, for collaborative albums or recompilations 3. Total tracks per set and per box set And other one I forgot it, the problem associated with albums with the same name but different artists. Actually this is a mess because only one resource is created. Bye. On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 8:20 PM, Andrew Lake <[email protected]> wrote: > Yup, double typing is exactly what I had in mind. It cuts down on a > proliferation of new classes and more simply reflects what actually > happens in the real world - resources on the users computer can be of > multiple types (rdf:type has no maxCardinality that I can recall). > Applications already have to deal with this possibility. > > The query would be simple: > 1. If the user wants live performances of any type then use: > ?r rdf:type nmm:LivePerformance > 2. If the user wants TV show live performances use: > ?r rdf:type nmm:LivePerformance > ?r rdf:type nmm:TVShow > 3. If the user wants Music Video live performances use: > ?r rdf:type nmm:LivePerformance > ?r rdf:type nmm:MusicVideo > 4. If the user wants Music live performances use: > ?r rdf:type nmm:LivePerformance > ?r rdf:type nmm:MusicPiece > 5. if the user wants a concert of any type use: > ?r rdf:type nmm:Concert > 6. if the user wants a concert movie use: > ?r rdf:type nmm:Concert > ?r rdf:type nmm:Movie > 7. if the user wants a concert TV show use: > ?r rdf:type nmm:Concert > ?r rdf:type nmm:TVShow > > Even better, if nfo:Media is ever expanded to include new types such > as (Books, AudioBooks, Plays, Spoken Word, etc.) this live performance > ontology wouldn't need to be updated again. > I really think we can get all the benefits we need without introducing > media-specific live performance types. > > Hope this helps, > Andrew > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:49 AM, Sebastian Trüg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > looks very nice indeed. Would you thus propose to double-type live > > performance videos with nmm:MusicVideo and nmm:LivePerformance? > > > > How about the attached layout instead. > > > > We simply derive the live video and audio from the same live base class. > > That way we can easily query all live performances, be it audio or video. > > Also I added an intermediate class nmm:MusicVideo and the badly named > > nmm:MusicVideoVideo which is supposed to be typical music videos as you > > get from performers for mtv and stuff. > > That way we can also easily query for videos that contain music in any > form. > > > > What do you think? > > > > Cheers, > > Sebastian > > > > On 04/04/2012 07:26 PM, Andrew Lake wrote: > >> nmm:TVShow is a subclass of nfo:Media so yes, it should be okay to do > that. :-) > >> > >> peace and much respect, > >> Andrew > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:23 AM, Ignacio Serantes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>> Assuming that nmm:TVShow could be used instead nfo:Media seems good > for me > >>> :). > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Andrew Lake <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for taking the time to put this together Sebastian. > >>>> > >>>> I wonder if it would be possible to push a simpler class > >>>> nmm:LivePerformance up above the media type (audio/music/video). > >>>> Perhaps just subclassed from nfo:Media, since we could have audio or > >>>> video live performances. Then perhaps we could just add the type to > >>>> any existing audio, music, video, tv show, etc. resource to indicate > >>>> it is a live performance. A concert then is just a special type of > >>>> live performance that can have multiple live performances. It might > >>>> even have unique properties like location, numberOfPerformers, > >>>> tourStops, etc. > >>>> > >>>> Based on what you came up with and Ignacio's comments, I've attached a > >>>> png that captures what I'm thinking might work. > >>>> > >>>> Hope this helps, > >>>> Andrew > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 4:41 AM, Ignacio Serantes <[email protected]> > wrote: > >>>>> In a second view I have some remarks: > >>>>> > >>>>> Why nmm:MusicVideo is related to nmm:LiveMusicPerformance? There are > >>>>> totally > >>>>> independent without any relation. > >>>>> nmm:MusicVideo must be related to many nmm:MusicPiece as > >>>>> nmm:LiveMusicPerformance. This is a very uncommon case but there is a > >>>>> few > >>>>> music video clips related to more than on song. > >>>>> I'm assuming a 0:n cardinality because I have several live > performances > >>>>> related to a nmm:MusicPiece I don't own. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Apr 4, 2012 at 10:40 AM, Sebastian Trüg <[email protected]> > >>>>> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Hi guys, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I quickly drew little diagrams trying to summarize again. Please > tell > >>>>>> me > >>>>>> what I missed: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 1.png is the example of a concert which is split into live > performances > >>>>>> or certain music pieces. Still missing are the DataObject parts. > There > >>>>>> could be a filedataobject for all of them or only for the concert. > in > >>>>>> the latter case the rest would be embedded data objects or we need > >>>>>> something new like "part of a dataobject". > >>>>>> 2.png is the relationship between the classes. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Cheers, > >>>>>> Sebastian > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Best wishes, > >>> Ignacio > >>> > >>> > >> > -- Best wishes, Ignacio
_______________________________________________ Nepomuk mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
