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 20:28:22 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970903100428q355b4422gc38e844fe7c5d8af@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 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?



It is what Pierre-Antoine mentioned at
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Mar/0031.html
My concern is tooling. He said "XMP people overstate a little their
compliance with RDF". I would put it the other way round and say "developing
an RDF schema and saying it can easily be applied to canonical XMP is good,
but we need to be very careful about tooling and serialization." The latter
does not matter in the RDF schema design, but in practice a lot. So if we
provide the schema, we need to give advice that tools that rely on the RDF
schema need to be very specific (and provide the details of the specifics)
in their serialization if they want to not break the XMP / generic XML /
RDF-XML syntax processing options.

With such advice, which you might call "binding the schema (*normatively*,
which is AFAIK very unusual in RDF modeling) to a specific serialization", I
have nothing against producing the schema.

Felix



>
>
>  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 11:29:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 10 March 2009 11:29:03 GMT