W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > April 2009

RE: F2F 3 and call for comments

From: Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 16:18:36 +0200
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>, Joakim SŲderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
CC: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>, "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD9846F872C7874BB4E0FDF2A61EF09F155BA7EFFD@RZJC1EX.jr1.local>
Dear RaphaŽl, all,

> Regarding terminology: could we please avoid the term 'Tag', like in 
> 'Top Supported Tags' [1]? I think it is completely 
> inappropriate in the 
> context of this WG. 

I fully agree.

> There are still looking for the correct term for the super-class of 
> Resource and Representation, but it will definitively *NOT* 
> be 'Entity'.
> What was wrong with 'Media Objects'? Would 'Media resources' 
> not be good?

I see that in the AWWSW context 'entity' is not an appropriate term for the super-class, we choose it as we thought it was general enough. The reason not to go for 'media object' was that some standards use it for parts into which content can be decomposed, we avoided 'resource' as annotation could refer to different levels.

It seems whatever we choose, we will clash with some other terminology ;-) 
So the most important thing is to define the terms we are using well and explain how they relate to terms used in other work.

Best regards,
Received on Monday, 20 April 2009 14:19:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:33 UTC