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

Hi Thomas,

I tried to follow the thread carefully but i couldn't notice Content Negotiation to be encountered into the discussion. IMHO, your proposal is accurate and correct. However, it considers two different digital representations of the same resource (as you semantic description explicitly states) as they are two different resources. Though it is correct on it own, the original intention may be different? If somebody want to say that these are two different files containing digital representations of the same resource than I think we have to take into consideration the Content Negotiation mechanism.

Anyway, what do you think is relation between your proposal and Content Negotiation mechanism?

Regards,
Milorad Tosic



>________________________________
> From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
>To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org> 
>Cc: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>; Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>; asaegyn@gmail.com; Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>; jean-claude.moissinac@telecom-paristech.fr; Juliette Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com> 
>Sent: Thursday, December 5, 2013 2:52 PM
>Subject: 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-----
>
>
>