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

Re: Review of 'Use Cases and Requirements for Ontology and API for Media Object 1.0', Working Draft 19 January 2009

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:49:12 +0900
Message-ID: <49900A28.30102@w3.org>
To: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org, public-media-fragment@w3.org

Pierre-Antoine Champin wrote:
> Felix Sasaki a ├ęcrit :
>   
>>>> I think Yves made the point that FRBR does pose problems for videos, and
>>>> he
>>>> told me offline (I hope no secret) that the BCC is not using it, but
>>>> their
>>>> own abstraction scheme.
>>>>         
>>> which is really, really, similar to FRBR Items and Manifestations (a
>>> rdfs:subClassOf should happen, at some point).
>>>       
>> I think I said it before, and the charter of this working group
>> http://www.w3.org/2008/01/media-annotations-wg.html
>> says it too: our goal is to develop a simple lingua franca for existing
>> formats. If we want to take FRBR as an input format into account, IMO
>> there has to be existing applications which output FRBR. Otherwise we will
>> end up in feature creep and a lot of "wouldn't it be nice?" discussions.
>>     
>
> I would argue in favor of keeping only the "greatest common divider".
> The distinction between Item and Manifestation seems quite stable. 

Again, our goal is not about "quite stable", but about "is something 
available in existing data or not".

> Seems
> to me that they correspond to the notions of Entity and Resource in the
> Web (HTTP) terminology.
>
> Besides that, I would be tempted to say that a Resource can be "derived
> from" another Resource, and that this relation subsumes the
> Manifestation-Expression, Expression-Work, Work-Work relations in FRBR,
> or the Broadcast-Version, Version-Episode relations in the BBC ontology.
>   

Again, there is the existing meta data for that?

Felix

>   pa
>   
Received on Monday, 9 February 2009 10:49:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 February 2009 10:49:48 GMT