SOVARR Catalogue compatibility

[echo66]

Greetings!

I noticed that there is a new vocabulary for audio features (https://code.soundsoftware.ac.uk/projects/audio-features-catalogue). Is it related to the one in this git repository? If not, is there an existing mapping between them?

[zazi]

@echo66 I can't really see your new audio features vocabulary at https://code.soundsoftware.ac.uk/projects/audio-features-catalogue
however, you may ping @fazekasgy (Gyorgy Fazekas) directly, because you should may know about the Audio Features Ontology and your mentioned audio features vocabulary ;)

[echo66]

https://code.soundsoftware.ac.uk/projects/audio-features-catalogue/repository/entry/rdfonto/baseOntoV2.n3

This one, Thomas.

[zazi]

thx @echo66 for providing the link to the ontology. maybe you can write to the MO mailing list (https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/music-ontology-specification-group) as well. I think that there a few more guys will hopefully read it.
At a first glance, I would tend to say that the SOVARR Audio Features Vocabulary is more comprehensive and detailed than the MO Audio Features Ontology extension. I'm not aware of a mapping our whether this ontology is derived from the MO Audio Features Ontology. Nevertheless, we can try to align them (if necessary). However, before doing so, I would just wait for a bit more feedback from @fazekasgy or @moustaki.

[zazi]

oh, btw, I found a (probably) related thread in the MO mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/music-ontology-specification-group/yOj99p4ul98
Unfortunately, all links from this thread are dead links now ...

[zazi]

maybe "A Shared Vocabulary for Audio Features" by A. Allik et. al (see http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007%2F978-3-642-41242-4_44) contains some more background one the SOVARR Audio Features vocabulary.

[zazi]

ok, the final report of the SOVARR project brings some light into the darkness and explains the relationship of the Audio Features Ontology and the Audio Features Vocabulary, see https://www.mysciencework.com/publication/file/1478114/a-shared-open-vocabulary-for-audio-research-and-retrieval-final-report
So both are utilised in conjunction.

[echo66]

Greetings, Thomas! Thanks for the links (and sorry for the (big) delay).

That Audio Features Ontology is not the same that extended MO. And, by the looks of it, the MO extension is abandoned, even if Sonic Annotator plugins still refer to it.

[fazekasgy]

Hi All,

A bit more info here: http://sovarr.c4dm.eecs.qmul.ac.uk/wiki/Audio_features
Apologies the site was down for the last couple of weeks.

It doesn't abandon the MO extension but we were rethinking the model in that project to cover a broader set of use cases. Let me know if you need help or tell me a bit more about your application.. maybe we could retake some work on this (which is planned anyway in another project soon).

Cheers,
George

On 25 May 2015, at 12:27, echo66 wrote:

Greetings, Thomas! Thanks for the links (and sorry for the (big) delay).

That Audio Features Ontology is not the same that extended MO. And, by the looks of it, the MO extension is abandoned, even if Sonic Annotator plugins still refer to it.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub.