- From: Raphaël Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
- Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:08:13 +0200
- To: Véronique Malaisé <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
- CC: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>, "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all, > I agree that it is too broad as it is, but there are two core points: > - one is related to the description schema and search possibilities > ([6083]), namely: should the description scheme define a set of > properties to make explicit relationships between the metadata elements > describing one content (who, between the possible participants is > performing one of the multiple actions possibly attached to the > description of one document), to allow a precise description of the > content (and not enforce it). The Cataloging Cultural Objects (CCO) portal seems to be a relevant pointer for this use case, http://vraweb.org/ccoweb/cco/index.html. It contains a list of vocabularies and thesauri together with metadata schemas for describing cultural heritage objects. I'm not sure however that the current format allows to represent complex relationships in your annotations as you would like to put in the requirement [6083]. Raphaël -- Raphaël Troncy CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science), Kruislaan 413, 1098 SJ Amsterdam, The Netherlands e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093 Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312 Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 10:09:04 UTC