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: Tue, 10 Mar 2009 11:36:26 +0100
Message-ID: <49B642AA.6030505@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 Felix,

> 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.

Serialization is a different issue, butI was not suggesting to use a 
different syntax than XML/RDF (I'm all for having an XML/RDF 
serialization, this is the official syntax ;-)). I like also the 
canonical representation of XMP, I didn't say we should not stick on that.
I just say that when there are _multiple_ ways of encoding structured 
lists, we should pick one (from the canonical representation) to solve 
the ambiguity. Therefore, I don't see what are the remaining issues of 
creating an rdf schema of the XMP metadata model. Could you point me one?


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 Tuesday, 10 March 2009 10:38:23 UTC

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