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

Re: data interchange format

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pchampin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:19:51 +0000
Message-ID: <496DD867.9070504@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: Felix Sasaki <fsasaki@w3.org>
CC: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, public-media-annotation@w3.org

Felix Sasaki a écrit :
> 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.

Just a precision: JSON is a subset of javascript, to it is "naturally"
understood by browsers, that is what makes it so popular.

Now, it seems to me that the discussion is becoming: should we have a
fine grain API returning only simple types (e.g. getDateGeneral vs.
getPubDate), or a coarser grain API returning  more complex data (as
proposed by Joachim).

An alterenative method would be to have an optional flags in each method
to explicitly require structure data / specific data. E.g.

getDate()
  -> "2008-01-13" // creationDate by default
getDate(QUALIFIERS)
  -> [ "2008-01-13", "creationDate" ]
getDate(QUALIFIERS|MULTIPLE)t
  -> [["2008-01-13","creationDate"],["2008-01-14", "publishDate"] ]
getDate("publishDate")
  -> "2008-01-14"

This is just an example, the actual parameters / result could be
different, of course. That being said, does that example make sense ?

  pa

> 
> 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 Wednesday, 14 January 2009 12:20:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 14 January 2009 12:20:37 GMT