Re: data interchange format

Hi Joakim,

sorry, I misunderstood, my bad. I agree, let's discuss this later again 
and see what other think.

Felix

Joakim Söderberg さんは書きました:
> I don't mean that we should use JSON but be inspired by what they do. But it is possible that your approach is a way forward. Maybe we can discuss it next time you attend the telephone meeting?
>
> /Joakim
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Felix Sasaki [mailto:fsasaki@w3.org] 
> Sent: den 13 januari 2009 16:32
> To: Joakim Söderberg
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: data interchange format
>
> Hi Joakim,
>
> I tried a different approach which is again not specific to a format 
> (JSON / RDF / XML / ...). It is an update of the XSLT implementation, 
> but that is replacable.
>
> I updated
> http://www.w3.org/People/fsasaki/annotation-mappings/
> to contain a property "dateGeneral", in addition to "pubdate". 
> "dateGeneral" encompasses both "pubdate" and other kinds of dates, e.g. 
> "modification date". So querying a feed using the property "dateGeneral" 
> gives you a superset of the results of "pubdate". See e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/People/fsasaki/annotation-mappings/query/q?inputURI=http%3A%2F%2Fgdata.youtube.com%2Ffeeds%2Fbase%2Fvideos%2F-%2FExperte%3Fclient%3Dytapi-youtube-browse%26v%3D2&property=pubdate
> vs.
> http://www.w3.org/People/fsasaki/annotation-mappings/query/q?inputURI=http%3A%2F%2Fgdata.youtube.com%2Ffeeds%2Fbase%2Fvideos%2F-%2FExperte%3Fclient%3Dytapi-youtube-browse%26v%3D2&property=dateGeneral
>
> I like the levels of granularity you describe DC > EXIF > XMP, but I'm 
> not sure if you need a specific format to achieve that. The granularity 
> description itself is enough to achieve the effect you want, see above 
> implementation. And a format would create the burden that it must be 
> implemented by tools who normally don't process Jason, e.g. browsers.
>
> Felix
>
> Joakim Söderberg さんは書きました:
>   
>> Hello,
>> The way I see it, is that the definition of the data interchange format [1] is part of the API and therefore important. 
>>
>> If we define a flexible format (like JSON) we could define type-value pairs or an array thereof which defines what you get (preferably in a simple way). It could solve the granularity problem i.e. "dc:rights vs. xmpDM:copyright" by informing what attribute is referred e.g. [Disney,dc:rights] [Walt Disney Company ,xmpDM:copyright].  
>>
>> We could define what a valid array should look like:
>> [(value, attribute), (value, attribute),..., (value, attribute)]
>>
>> - and valid values for "value" and "attribute" in BNF for example.
>>
>> The ontology could then perhaps define the levels of granularity e.g. (from top to bottom) DC -> EXIF -> XMP being the order of the elements in the array, similar to the schema of preference defined by the Metadata Working Group.
>>
>> Just some thoughts to get the discussion going...
>> /Joakim
>>
>>
>> [1] http://www.w3.org/2008/WebVideo/Annotations/wiki/Dataformat
>>
>>
>>   
>>     
>
>
>

Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2009 15:49:03 UTC