[Nepomuk] OSCAF and music live and videoclips

[Andrew Lake]

On Thu, Mar 22, 2012 at 11:56 PM, Sebastian Trüg <sebastian at trueg.de> wrote:
>
>> nmm:LiveMusicVideo, nmm:ConcertMusicVideo and, maybe,
>> nmm:VideoMusicVideo :?. I'm not strong in English names so for me is
>> good if I could store the information I want.
>
> Let's get Banganrang into the mix. What do you think, Andrew?
>

Thanks for the cc Sebastian. :-)

I was also looking for a way to basically link videos to music. How
far can we go to solving this without introducing new types?

So these videos are basically performances of a particular MusicPiece.
Hmm, what about a property sort of like nmm:performanceOf ?  So any
nfo:Video could be a performance of a particular nmm:MusicPiece.  You
might even be able to link different nmm:MusicPiece or even nfo:Audio
in the same way. So maybe a domain of nfo:Media?

I can see the value of changing the domain of nmm:performer to
nfo:Media since I can imagine several kinds of media beyond
nmm:MusicPiece that have performers (audio books, spoken word, live
concerts, poetry, stand up comedy shows, etc.).

For a portion of a video (tvshow, concert, etc.) that has the
performance of a particular music piece, I could see value in a
nmm:VideoPart type or something similar that has unique begining and
end properties of a video resource.  Then nmm:performanceOf could be
used as a property of nmm:VideoPart.

I think that would cover most of the basic semantics and allow the
userspace semantics (titling, tagging, etc.) handle the rest.  My
reluctance to introducing new types comes down to this: If the new
type doesn't have a bunch of unique properties then there really isn't
much semantics being introduced and the new type is little more than a
tag - which is just as searchable, groupable and far more flexible.
While I'm not a huge fan of pushing stuff up to the userspace, it has
value in that it keeps the core ontology relatively stable (a blessing
for app developers).  It also provides a great deal of flexibility by
allowing new use-cases to emerge.  My view has been to first try
solving the problem with tags for a while and then if/when a
consistent pattern starts to emerge, then we can talk about if it
makes sense to update the ontology.

Anyway, that's how I'm seeing it from the Bangarang side.  Hope this
is helpful and please feel free to throw stones in this general
direction. :-)

peace and much respect,
Andrew