Re: Is the same video but in different encodings the owl:sameAs?

Dear Public-LOD,

Thank you all for your very helpful replies. Following your joint
arguments, owl:sameAs is _not_ an option then. The most reasonable
thing to do seems to introduce some sort of proxy object, on top of
which statements can be made.

One idea that came to my mind (and I am not yet sure if it is stupid
or genius) would be to use the <video> element itself as the proxy
object. Rather than making statements about the concrete encodings
(i.e., the .mp4 and the .ogv), would it make sense to make statements
using the "container" that holds them? Assuming the following Web page
located at http://videos.example.org/ with a <video> element with an
ID…

======http://videos.example.org/======
<video id="video">
    <source src="./video.ogv" type="…">
    <source src="./video.mp4" type="…">
  </video>
===============================

…this would allow me to say…

  <http://videos.example.org/#video> a ma:MediaResource .
  <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:title "Sample Video" .
  <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:description "Sample Description" .
  <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:locator <http://ex.org/video.mp4> .
  <http://videos.example.org/#video> ma:locator <http://ex.org/video.ogv> .

Regarding the ma:MediaResource, the Media Ontology seems to support
this: http://www.w3.org/TR/mediaont-10/#media-resource.

Does this make any sense at all? What do you think?

Thanks,
Tom

-- 
Thomas Steiner, Employee, Google Inc.
http://blog.tomayac.com, http://twitter.com/tomayac

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.12 (GNU/Linux)

iFy0uwAntT0bE3xtRa5AfeCheCkthAtTh3reSabiGbl0ck0fjumBl3DCharaCTersAttH3b0ttom.hTtP5://xKcd.c0m/1181/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Received on Thursday, 5 December 2013 13:53:15 UTC