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

Re: W3C MAWG meeting agenda, 2009-03-10 (unsigned!) - regrets

From: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Date: Mon, 09 Mar 2009 23:43:17 +0100
Message-ID: <49B59B85.3090306@cwi.nl>
To: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
CC: Tobias BŁrger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, Joakim SŲderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Dear all,

> page 59-60 of
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMPSpecificationPart2.pdf
> contains some RDF in XML examples, not a schema, but maybe helpful in 
> terms of checking "we don't want to do something different than that".
> also,
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/xmp/pdfs/XMPSpecificationPart1.pdf
>  contains a section "Canonical representations as RDF", see also the 
> section "RDF issues", which describes (also) unsupported features of the 
> usage of RDF for XMP.
> How do you expect your schema to relate to the canonical representation 
> of XMP, and how do you expect the "RDF issues" to be solved?

All the issues seem to be related to the difficulty of representing 
structured sets in RDF, and the well-known problems of rdf:List, rdf:Seq 
and rdf:Bag. These constraints from the XMP data model can be relaxed. 
What are the other "RDF issues" that are critical to prevent having an 
RDF Schema according to you?


RaphaŽl Troncy
CWI (Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science),
Science Park 123, 1098 XG Amsterdam, The Netherlands
e-mail: raphael.troncy@cwi.nl & raphael.troncy@gmail.com
Tel: +31 (0)20 - 592 4093
Fax: +31 (0)20 - 592 4312
Web: http://www.cwi.nl/~troncy/
Received on Monday, 9 March 2009 22:44:25 UTC

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