- From: Thomas Steiner <tomac@google.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2013 12:39:57 +0100
- To: "public-lod@w3.org" <public-lod@w3.org>
- Cc: Mike Amundsen <mamund@yahoo.com>
[+mamund CHEZ yahoo POINT com] Dear Public-LOD, Thanks yet another time for your insightful comments. I will most probably go with the "FRBR-ish" approach then by giving my <video> elements an ID, sans explicitly using FRBR terms… <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> . The whole discussion spawned off an interesting side discussion here and on Twitter [1] on how HTTP content negotiation and client-side "content negotiation" (note the quotes) works with <video>. Mike Amundsen (CC'ed) then built the bridge to Web images, where upon reading up on its history (/me too young) I stumbled upon this quote [2] from 1993: "Actually, the image reading routines we're currently using figure out the image format on the fly, so the filename extension won't even be significant." Interesting… Thanks again all on this thread for helping me out! Cheers, Tom -- [1] https://twitter.com/tomayac/status/408889842849054720 [2] http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1993q1/0257.html -- 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 Friday, 6 December 2013 11:40:46 UTC