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

Re: mapping table 2.0

From: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:48:33 +0900
Message-ID: <49A4DBB1.6090509@w3.org>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
David Singer さんは書きました:
> On the discussion of ontology and complexity, forgive me if this has 
> already been brought up, but it seems as if there are at least two 
> places where the ontology and complexity can be evident.
> One is in the obvious place: in the expression of metadata. This gives 
> rise to complex (often XML) structures to describe what is needed; 
> things like
> <person role="author">
> <name role="given" order="2">Blatherick</name>
> <name role="given" order="1">Fred</name>
> <name role="patronymic">Bloggs</name>
> <date role="birth" type="ISO-8601">1937-04-01</date>
> </person>
> and so on. Every reader is burdened with the ontology tagging.
> However, another approach is to define the tagging itself more 
> precisely. For example, one might say
> "TDRL" is the DATE of the PUBLICATION of the WORK
> TEXT is the NAME of the PERSON that WROTE the WORDS of the WORK
> TAUB is the DATE of BIRTH of the PERSON that EDITED the TRANSLATION of 
> the WORDS of the TRANSCRIPT of the AUDIO of the WORK
> and so on. I realize that this only helps with putting the tags onto a 
> firmer foundation; it does not help with (de-)composing tags (e.g. the 
> XML above, where personal-name is decomposed), and nor does it help 
> much with formalizing the type of the values (e.g. the type of the 
> date string above), unless the tag has a required associated type.
> But such tags might make it possible to do metadata conversion and 
> i18n. But getting such an ontology developed may be a research effort...

If I recall correctly you mentioned that kinds of efforts as
"(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')"
and also mentioned your preference for
"(b) have a small set of tags which we encourage should be implemented 
in any standard."

Hence I am wondering: Do you think that the mapping table is a useful 
contribution to b), or rather to a)? What value and purpose do you see 
in the mapping table in general?

Received on Wednesday, 25 February 2009 05:49:19 UTC

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