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

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

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 16:44:52 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970903100044w42d1109ega9c6a31ddb66fa10@mail.gmail.com>
To: RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>
Cc: Tobias BŁrger <tobias.buerger@sti2.at>, Joakim SŲderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Hello Raphael,


2009/3/10 RaphaŽl Troncy <Raphael.Troncy@cwi.nl>

> 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.



so that means that you expect the RDF representation of XMP different than
the canonical representation of XMP? For the latter I see the benefit that
it can be processed by
a) XMP processing tools
b) generic XML processing tools
c) RDF-tools which can take RDF/XML as an input
for the former, *if* it would be different than canonical XMP, the drawback
is that it will not be processable by a), and if a non-XML serialization of
RDF is used, also not by b). The advantage is that more, that
d) non RDF/XML specific RDF tools can process it.

I have a high preference to stick to the canonical representation of XMP,
since it opens or rather keeps doors to three processing scenarios (XMP
specific, XMP, RDF), and I hope that the door to RDF processing does not
rely on the non-XML serialization.



> What are the other "RDF issues" that are critical to prevent having an RDF
> Schema according to you?


None, only the proposal which you stated "the constraints from the XMP data
model can be relaxed", see above. To put it differently, I have a high
preference to keep compliance with existing, widely deployed processing
models, here XMP being an example.

Felix


>
> 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/ <http://www.cwi.nl/%7Etroncy/>
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 March 2009 08:00:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 March 2009 08:00:22 GMT