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

-- 
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 March 2009 10:38:23 GMT