Account Options

  1. Sign in
The old Google Groups will be going away soon, but your browser is incompatible with the new version.
Google Groups Home
« Groups Home
Music Ontology Specification Group
Home
+ new post
About this group
Join this group
2.1 branch merged in trunk
Options
There are currently too many topics in this group that display first. To make this topic appear first, remove this option from another topic.
There was an error processing your request. Please try again.
flag
   17 messages - Collapse all  -  Translate all to Translated (View all originals)
The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
 
From:
To:
Cc:
Followup To:
Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Validation:
For verification purposes please type the characters you see in the picture below or the numbers you hear by clicking the accessibility icon. Listen and type the numbers you hear
 
Yves Raimond  
View profile  
 More options Nov 28 2010, 8:25 am
From: Yves Raimond <yves.raim...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:25:06 +0000
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2010 8:25 am
Subject: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hello!

Just a quick note to let you know that I just merged the 2.1 branch
Zazi has been working on in trunk, with a couple of very minor
changes:

http://wiki.musicontology.com/index.php/MOProposal21

I will quickly go through the todo list to see if everything is OK,
and hopefully put out a new release soon.

Cheers,
y


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Alexandre Passant  
View profile  
 More options Nov 28 2010, 8:48 am
From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.pass...@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 13:48:13 +0000
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2010 8:48 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hi,

On 28 Nov 2010, at 13:25, Yves Raimond wrote:

> Hello!

> Just a quick note to let you know that I just merged the 2.1 branch
> Zazi has been working on in trunk, with a couple of very minor
> changes:

> http://wiki.musicontology.com/index.php/MOProposal21

Will it include the proposed changes re. domain of instrument / label ?

http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/bro...

Thanks,

Alex.

> I will quickly go through the todo list to see if everything is OK,
> and hopefully put out a new release soon.

> Cheers,
> y

> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Music Ontology Specification Group" group.
> To post to this group, send email to music-ontology-specification-group@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to music-ontology-specification-group+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group?hl=en.

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Yves Raimond  
View profile  
 More options Nov 28 2010, 9:00 am
From: Yves Raimond <yves.raim...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:00:54 +0000
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2010 9:00 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Alexandre Passant

Yes - it's in there already. I did make a change to Zazi's proposal
though: the mo:primary_instrument includes agent in its domain now but
the mo:instrument one was left unmodified - is that OK?

Cheers,
y


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Alexandre Passant  
View profile  
 More options Nov 28 2010, 9:23 am
From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.pass...@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:23:14 +0000
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2010 9:23 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On 28 Nov 2010, at 14:00, Yves Raimond wrote:

It be good to also have the range of instrument changed, unless it conflicts with other modeling attributes.

Especially if we go into precise instrument types / models.
E.g.
:x mo:primary_instrument :Guitar ;
 mo:instrument :Gibson_SG_1977 ;
 mo:instrument :Gibson_SG_1978 .

Alex.

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Yves Raimond  
View profile  
 More options Nov 28 2010, 9:34 am
From: Yves Raimond <yves.raim...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:34:07 +0000
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2010 9:34 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 2:23 PM, Alexandre Passant

Hmm. In the sense of 'owns' then? Perhaps it should belong to a
separate vocab (there must be something out there defining a 'owning'
predicate? perhaps good relations?)

Cheers,
y


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Alexandre Passant  
View profile  
 More options Nov 28 2010, 9:38 am
From: Alexandre Passant <alexandre.pass...@deri.org>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 14:38:54 +0000
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2010 9:38 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

On 28 Nov 2010, at 14:34, Yves Raimond wrote:

hmmm ... I won't directly use own here, unless we add things like #num of the particular guitar.
That said, if that's too complex / conflict, I can leave with primary_instrument and use only that one when modelling relation between and artist and its instruments.

Alex.

--
Dr. Alexandre Passant
Digital Enterprise Research Institute
National University of Ireland, Galway
:me owl:sameAs <http://apassant.net/alex> .

 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bob Ferris  
View profile  
 More options Nov 28 2010, 10:08 am
From: Bob Ferris <z...@elbklang.net>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:08:10 +0100
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2010 10:08 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Thanks a lot Yves!

re. the mo:interpreter property:

AFAIK, I added this property during my ID3 tag to Music Ontology
mapping[1] to have a relation for the case, where I can extract a
related person that interpreted/remixed etc. somehow the described music
track, but I do not really know the exact relation, e.g. remixer
(mo:remixer) or sampler (mo:sampler).

re. the instruments relation:

Am I right: you would use in general a kind of "own relation" (hopefully
from another ontology) to related a music instrument to a person and
mo:primary_instrument to related the primary instrument of an artist to
him/her? And mo:instrument should only be used for temporal relations of
used instruments in performances?

Maybe we should then rename mo:instrument to mo:used_instrument, which
might intent a clearer usage.

An opportunity to express that some can play a certain instrument is to
apply the Cognitive Characteristics Ontology e.g.,

ex:APerson
    a foaf:Person ;
    foaf:name "John White" ;
    cco:skill <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Piano> ;
    cco:habit [
       a cco:CognitiveCharacteristic ;
       cco:topic <http://dbpedia.org/resource/Piano> ;
       cco:characteristic cco:skill ;
       wo:weight [
          a wo:Weight ;
          wo:weight_value 6.0 ;
          wo:scale ex:AScale
          ] ;
       cco:activity
<http://sw.opencyc.org/concept/Mx4rvVjUJ5wpEbGdrcN5Y29ycA>
       ] .

Which says in its shortcut relation that "John White has some skills in
piano", which makes probably more sense its reified form that "John
White can play the piano quite good" (cf. [2]).
However, this description doesn't say anything about that John White has
an piano.

Cheers,

Bob

[1] http://smiy.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/smiy/pmkb-aperture-extractor/
(untested, because my working machine is broken since the last the last
commitment there :\)
[2]
http://purl.org/ontology/cco/cognitivecharacteristics.html#sec-UMIRL-...

Am 28.11.2010 14:25, schrieb Yves Raimond:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Yves Raimond  
View profile  
 More options Nov 28 2010, 10:09 am
From: Yves Raimond <yves.raim...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:09:32 +0000
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2010 10:09 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hello!

> Just a quick note to let you know that I just merged the 2.1 branch
> Zazi has been working on in trunk, with a couple of very minor
> changes:

> http://wiki.musicontology.com/index.php/MOProposal21

> I will quickly go through the todo list to see if everything is OK,
> and hopefully put out a new release soon.

I've now went through the ToDo list, cleaned it, and finished the last
couple of items - there are now just two outstanding items, which I
think I'll leave for now, as it may need some more discussions:

http://wiki.musicontology.com/index.php/Todo_list
http://wiki.musicontology.com/index.php/MOProposal21#MO_Proposal_2.1

The up to date ontology is available from there:

http://motools.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/motools/mo/rdf/musicontolog...

Added to the things we discussed before, I added three new properties,
that were requested by Alexandre earlier:

* activity_start and activity_end (from an artist to an xsd:date)
* origin (from an artist to a geo:SpatialThing)

I'll put out a new release if all is fine.

Cheers,
y


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Yves Raimond  
View profile  
 More options Nov 28 2010, 10:15 am
From: Yves Raimond <yves.raim...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 15:15:09 +0000
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2010 10:15 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

> Thanks a lot Yves!

Thanks a lot to you Zazi! I couldn't have done it so quickly without
the amazing work you did in the 2.1 branch!!

> re. the mo:interpreter property:

> AFAIK, I added this property during my ID3 tag to Music Ontology mapping[1]
> to have a relation for the case, where I can extract a related person that
> interpreted/remixed etc. somehow the described music track, but I do not
> really know the exact relation, e.g. remixer (mo:remixer) or sampler
> (mo:sampler).

Oh OK - that makes sense. It certainly a lot better than what we had
before anyway, so I am happy to leave it in for now.

> re. the instruments relation:

> Am I right: you would use in general a kind of "own relation" (hopefully
> from another ontology) to related a music instrument to a person and
> mo:primary_instrument to related the primary instrument of an artist to
> him/her? And mo:instrument should only be used for temporal relations of
> used instruments in performances?

Yes, I was thinking that would be the case.

> Maybe we should then rename mo:instrument to mo:used_instrument, which might
> intent a clearer usage.

Yes - some of those performance properties have very generic labels,
but I think we can live with that for now? (Or maybe just changing the
rdfs:label?)

OK - after taking a quick look at:

http://www.heppnetz.de/ontologies/goodrelations/goodrelations-UML.png

It looks like there is indeed a gr:owns property - but using it on an
artist would mean it is a 'business entity' - which I am sure many
artists would disagree with :-)

Cheers,
y


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Yves Raimond  
View profile  
 More options Nov 28 2010, 11:12 am
From: Yves Raimond <yves.raim...@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:12:20 +0000
Local: Sun, Nov 28 2010 11:12 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author

And here it is:

http://musicontology.com/

A couple of non-modelling things I think would be great for the next release:

* Streamline the publishing process - for historic reason, it is a bit
tedious - HTML docs live on dbtune, and the rest lives on sourceforge,
with sourceforge handling the (broken, as based on mod_rewrite) conneg
bit. Everything should be on one server - possibly sourceforge as
everything is static and anyone with a sourceforge account andaccess
to the motools project can publish a new revision.
* Clean the CSS and make the spec pretty
* Clean the specification - there's too much not very useful text in there
* A JS-based MO-m-atic for generating MO RDF for the most common
cases: tracks/artists/albums, digital availability, performances,
works, etc., on the spec page itself (better than a long list of
example, maybe?)

Cheers,
y


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bob Ferris  
View profile  
 More options Nov 29 2010, 2:34 pm
From: Bob Ferris <z...@elbklang.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:34:51 +0100
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2010 2:34 pm
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Well done, Yves!

some minor issues:

1. I guess, you probably know already my point of view re. the domain of
mo:label (the mo:ReleaseEvent/mo:Release discussion, see [1]). I'm not
really happen when we would move it to mo:Release ;)

2. Maybe we should note it again: we are now also able to associate
media types on the manifestation level via mo:media_type [2]. One can
use for instance some predefined ones from [3].

Cheers,

Bob

[1]
http://groups.google.com/group/music-ontology-specification-group/msg...
[2] http://www.musicontology.com/#term_media_type
[3] http://purl.org/ontology/mt/

Am 28.11.2010 17:12, schrieb Yves Raimond:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Kingsley Idehen  
View profile  
 More options Nov 29 2010, 3:22 pm
From: Kingsley Idehen <kide...@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 15:22:35 -0500
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2010 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 11/29/10 2:34 PM, Bob Ferris wrote:

Bob,

Any chance of adding some isDefinedBy triples to the media type ontology
[1] so that we can navigate holistically via Linked Data browsers? On
the Ontology instance data side, foaf:primarytopic or wdrs:describedby
that bring their .rdf descriptor document into scope re.
follow-your-nose navigation.

Examples:

1. http://purl.org/ontology/mt/ -- your media type ontology
2.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http://purl.org/ontolog...
-- not route to the .rdf doc that holds descriptions
3.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/about/html/http/smiy.sourceforge.net/...
- empty until there are triples the pull in the .rdf doc
4.
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/ode/?uri%5B%5D=http%3A%2F%2Flinkeddat...
-- this shows content of .rdf doc which is why you see something .

Kingsley

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bob Ferris  
View profile  
 More options Nov 29 2010, 4:23 pm
From: Bob Ferris <z...@elbklang.net>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 22:23:24 +0100
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2010 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hi Kingsley,

I can add is-defined-by relations, of course. However, I would prefer to
associate the descriptions to their namespace
(http://purl.org/ontology/mt/ - as we do it currently also with
rdfs:isDefinedBy relations in ontology definitions), rather then to the
rdf/xml representation in the .rdf document. Currently, you should also
get a text/turtle representation in a .n3 document (AFAIK), when you
request this MIME type. And hopefully, someday in the future also a RDFa
representation for better human-readability in a normal web browser.

Cheers,

Bob

Am 29.11.2010 21:22, schrieb Kingsley Idehen:


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Kingsley Idehen  
View profile  
 More options Nov 29 2010, 7:55 pm
From: Kingsley Idehen <kide...@openlinksw.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:55:46 -0500
Local: Mon, Nov 29 2010 7:55 pm
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On 11/29/10 4:23 PM, Bob Ferris wrote:

> Hi Kingsley,

> I can add is-defined-by relations, of course. However, I would prefer
> to associate the descriptions to their namespace
> (http://purl.org/ontology/mt/ - as we do it currently also with
> rdfs:isDefinedBy relations in ontology definitions), rather then to
> the rdf/xml representation in the .rdf document. Currently, you should
> also get a text/turtle representation in a .n3 document (AFAIK), when
> you request this MIME type. And hopefully, someday in the future also
> a RDFa representation for better human-readability in a normal web
> browser.

Anyway, looking better as per:
http://linkeddata.uriburner.com/describe/?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffoaf.me%2F...
.

I can follow links to holistic start points re. your ontologies :-)

Kingsley

--

Regards,

Kingsley Idehen
President&  CEO
OpenLink Software
Web: http://www.openlinksw.com
Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen
Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Yves Raimond  
View profile  
 More options Dec 1 2010, 5:21 am
From: Yves Raimond <yves.raim...@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 2010 10:21:28 +0000
Local: Wed, Dec 1 2010 5:21 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hello!

> some minor issues:

> 1. I guess, you probably know already my point of view re. the domain of
> mo:label (the mo:ReleaseEvent/mo:Release discussion, see [1]). I'm not
> really happen when we would move it to mo:Release ;)

Yes, I sort of got that :) There was no strong consensus in that
thread, so I took the decision that most people said they were happy
with. Hopefully that's ok...

> 2. Maybe we should note it again: we are now also able to associate media
> types on the manifestation level via mo:media_type [2]. One can use for
> instance some predefined ones from [3].

Cool!

Cheers,
y


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bob Ferris  
View profile  
 More options Dec 1 2010, 8:19 am
From: Bob Ferris <z...@elbklang.net>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2010 14:19:31 +0100
Local: Wed, Dec 1 2010 8:19 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Am 01.12.2010 11:21, schrieb Yves Raimond:

> Hello!

>> some minor issues:

>> 1. I guess, you probably know already my point of view re. the domain of
>> mo:label (the mo:ReleaseEvent/mo:Release discussion, see [1]). I'm not
>> really happen when we would move it to mo:Release ;)

> Yes, I sort of got that :) There was no strong consensus in that
> thread, so I took the decision that most people said they were happy
> with. Hopefully that's ok...

What about broaden the domain to mo:Release and mo:ReleaseEvent? :)

Cheers,

Bob

PS: which relations are now left for mo:ReleaseEvent instances? - time
and place. however, are there any more?


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
Bob Ferris  
View profile  
 More options Dec 20 2010, 6:18 am
From: Bob Ferris <z...@elbklang.net>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2010 12:18:27 +0100
Local: Mon, Dec 20 2010 6:18 am
Subject: Re: 2.1 branch merged in trunk
Print | Individual message | Show original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
Hi Kingsley,

Am 29.11.2010 21:22, schrieb Kingsley Idehen:

by fluke I view [1] in the Tabulator browser and by looking at this
representation I determined that probably already everything is fine. I
defined this namespace as SKOS concept scheme and every class is part of
that scheme and linked back with the property skos:inScheme. I guess
this might be enough, or?

Cheers,

Bob

[1] http://purl.org/ontology/mt/


 
You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
End of messages
« Back to Discussions « Newer topic     Older topic »

Create a group - Google Groups - Google Home - Terms of Service - Privacy Policy
©2013 Google