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?
Cheers.

   RaphaŽl

-- 
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 9 March 2009 22:44:26 GMT