[rdfweb-dev] foaf:depicts and parts of an image

Masahide Kanzaki post at kanzaki.com
Fri Oct 10 15:56:59 UTC 2003


Hi Dan, thanks for reply;

Let me put one more comment, though you might prefer Bugzilla or Wiki (but
I'm not sure how to do....).

>> If it's not a subproperty of foaf:depicts, we have two unrelated (at least
>> for machine) terms, whose meanings are basically the same or closely
>> related (that's why those names share English verb 'depicts'). I'm afraid
>> this sort of new term might hurt the generality and usability of FOAF
>> vocabulary...
>
>I'd support a separate vocabulary for image content description, I'm
>sure there will be other things beyond regions that will prove
>interesting to describe.

Yes, I agree that we need some separate terms for image content
description. But I think we should share (subset of) the same vocabulary to
describe something which is essentially the same.

Think about this. If a small picture (A) depicts something (B), we can write
 A foaf:depicts B.
which seems OK for everybody. Now, if a picture A was originally a part of
a large picture C (e.g. cut a region of C and saved as a different file A),
then the region A in C (let's call it A') still depicts B in the same way.
Hence I think it is natural to state
 A' foaf:depicts B.
Here, the context of A and A' is different. But the relationship of A-B and
A'-B seems unchanged (at least for me). Does this make sense ?

If so, I'd like to use the same term to describe the same relationship.


>In practice, I suspect many people have code and tools which assume that
>the kinds of images we reference with depicts/depiction are bitmaps
>addressable on the Web. I can imagine this practice extending to SVG
>as browser support for SVG grows, since a entire SVG image is a
>self-standing thing. I'm not sure the concept extends naturally to
>cover fragments of images, since the likely processing model for
>dealing with values of this property will vary.

Umm.. . sounds implementation issue and semantics are mixed ? I think an
RDF property should be defined to reflect a relationship in (some) world
first, then to be implemented, not the reverse.

Is my point clear ? If we should move to a different place, please guide
me. Thanks.

-- 
KANZAKI, Masahide a.k.a. masaka
http://kanzaki.com/info/webwho.rdf
mailto:webmaster(at)kanzaki.com
#Please use above address for a personal mail
#instead of post at kanzaki.com, which is for list only.



More information about the foaf-dev mailing list