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

Re: Publishing the Mapping Table (was minutes of 2009-03-10 teleconference)

From: Felix Sasaki <felix.sasaki@fh-potsdam.de>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:07:28 +0900
Message-ID: <ba4134970903180207q5e22f21o4815bfe9edd68661@mail.gmail.com>
To: David Singer <singer@apple.com>
Cc: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hello David,

everything we have done so far, including the mapping table, the toy
implementations of the API and the formalization example in SKOS etc., are
one way mapping, mostly using properties available in XMP as the target of
the mapping. That is, property A-1 from format A can be mapped to property
XMP-x. So far I have not seen anybody in the Working Group asking for a two
way mapping, so I regard this as an unspoken consensus that we are working
"only" on the one way mapping.


2009/3/18 David Singer <singer@apple.com>

> I am trying to come up to speed here, and a recent remark caught my eye and
> made me wonder:
> are we clear on the purpose of the ontology?  There is a substantial
> difference between a one-way mapping:
> If you want to know the answer to question X as a string, you can:
>  access the ID3 tag I
>  find the R aspect of the MPEG-7 construct C
>  append F and G from the EXIF meta-data space
>  ...and so on...
> and two-way mapping:
>  R in EXIF can be converted to/from Q in ID3 (most of the time)
> If our interest is in the WWW and APIs to access meta-data, the limited
> one-way mapping, and the result format, may be of more use to us.
> Sorry if this has already been covered.
> --
> David Singer
> Multimedia Standards, Apple Inc.
Received on Wednesday, 18 March 2009 09:08:08 UTC

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