Raphaël Troncy wrote: > 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]. The annotation format that has been adopted in the MultimediaN e-culture project is probably also relevant, as it is generic enough to be applied to Multimedia documents. Demo of their search interface in Ch collections at: http://e-culture.multimedian.nl/demo/search Veronique >Received on Tuesday, 23 September 2008 10:21:51 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 October 2008 05:33:19 GMT