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

Re: Intro and 'use cases'

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2008 08:12:42 +0900
Message-ID: <48DAC96A.6030102@w3.org>
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org

Just for issue tracking: issue 6113.

Felix

Dave Singer さんは書きました:
>
> At 10:22 +0200 23/09/08, Raphaël 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
>>> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html
>>> 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!)
Received on Wednesday, 24 September 2008 23:13:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 10 October 2008 05:33:19 GMT