[Nepomuk] OSCAF and music live and videoclips

[Sebastian Trüg]

On 03/23/2012 05:48 PM, Andrew Lake wrote:
> 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?

nfo:Media's comment refers to audio and visual content. In fact a video
could also be a performance of a play, ie. a piece of literature. So we
could go a little wider here or widen the scope of nfo:Media to written
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.).

Following my line of thinking above having a performer on a book does
not make much sense. But your point is still valid so maybe we need
another intermediate class which groups audio, visual, and written
media. Hm, and what about paintings?

> 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.

AFAICR that is pretty much the original idea. The part would be
nie:partOf the original video and its nie:DataObject type something
embedded. So I am all for this.

> 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.

But way less semantic'ish. :P

> 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.

In fact I am not a fan of tags at all. Their performance is waaaay worse
than types, there is no hierarchy, and no way to perform any inference.

> 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. :-)

lol

This is a fun discussion as I like both topics: media and ontologies.

(if we can find some sort of accord I will try some onto extensions in
the next email.)

Cheers,
Sebastian