W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > September 2008

Re: Intro and 'use cases'

From: Dave Singer <singer@apple.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2008 11:22:14 -0700
Message-Id: <p06240887c50035b3c2f5@[]>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org

At 10:22  +0200 23/09/08, RaphaŽl Troncy wrote:
>Dear all,
>Thanks David, I mostly agree with what you wrote.
>Some comments inlined.
>>>There are two solutions, perhaps, to this 
>>>problem: (a) relate all media annotation 
>>>systems by means of a firm semantic 
>>>background, so that a machine translator can 
>>>do the best it can ('the tag called title is 
>>>the formal_name of the work', 'the tag called 
>>>author is the formal_name of the person who 
>>>created the words of the work'); (b) have a 
>>>small set of tags which we encourage should be 
>>>implemented in any standard.
>>>We prefer (b) now; (a) is a research project, 
>>>not a standards activity. As a basis here, 
>>>we'd like to consider the very-commonly-used 
>>>ID3 tags (to the extent that they are defined).
>>Our charter
>>says that we ought to develop a "simple lingua 
>>franca" between existing standards. I translate 
>>"simple" into "also useable *as is*", that is 
>>into what you describe as (b). I also agree 
>>that we should concentrate on (b), and I think 
>>there is a some agreement in this group about 
>>that. What do others think?
>I'm not sure I agree with this distinction. How 
>will you classify the RDF Schema of Dublin Core 
>(DC) [1]? How will you classifiy the IPTC Photo 
>Metadata Standard [2] that does contain a formal 
>definition of the properties as well as 
>particular implementations (NAR, XMP)?
>I think we want to do something between a) and b).
>ID3 is a good and bad example: the format does 
>not enforce the meaning of specific properties, 
>and anyone can add new properties. But there is 
>a de facto set of properties commonly used, and 
>this is your b) approach. However, users do not 
>consistently used the properties. For example, 
>when you need to describe your classical music 
>songs, you don't know if you should only use the 
>'author' property, or add a 'composer', 
>'performer', etc property. There is hence 
>interop problem with ID3.
>The MMSEM XG has proposed a formal definition of 
>the most commonly used ID3 tags [3] using the 
>Music Ontology [4]. This is the a) approach.

I agree we can be tighter than ID3, while 
consistent with it.  (Or at least not 
inconsistent with it!)
David Singer
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 18:23:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:30 UTC