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

Re: Ontology for Media Entity 1.0 (ISAN)

From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 11:15:58 +0200
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>, "Soohong Daniel Park" <soohong.park@samsung.com>
Message-Id: <1EE9AA52-CF6F-4BC8-AEC0-6D4677A2B3CB@few.vu.nl>
To: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Hi.

On May 14, 2009, at 10:31 AM, 이원석 wrote:

> Hi. Veronique.
>
> I am sorry I don’t exactly understand the meaning of “in another  
> section” you said.
Sorry to have been unclear. IMO the list of formats "in scope" for the  
media ontology 1.0 are the formats that are now in the mapping table.  
If other formats are judged to be relevant, then we should make a  
subsection: in scope and taken into account in the first mapping  
table, in scope and not taken into account in the first mapping table.  
We then need to define the rationale of why some formats are taken  
into account while others are not: here Jean-Pierre's answer is very  
relevant: we can define sets of properties that are likely to be found  
on Internet vs properties unlikely to be found on Internet; we also  
have the vote for the "major formats" that has taken place to explain  
the fact that some formats are taken into account as priority.
> IMO I guess if we decide to add ISAN to in-scope, we can reflect  
> this to all part of ontology doc that are related with ISAN.
what would be "all parts of ontology doc that are related with ISAN"?
> Because we will release just first draft for ontology doc.
what do you mean with "we can reflect the changes because we will  
release just a first draft of the ontology document"?
> But even if we decide to add this, the appropriate timing is not now  
> but the second publication.
why would that be, if it is just about adding one subsection and one  
reference to the document, plus the rationale of taking some formats  
into account now and some later in the mapping effort?
>
> Anyway firstly we need to discuss about ISAN.
sure

Best regards,
Véronique
>
> Best regards,
> Wonsuk
>
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org 
> ] On Behalf Of Veronique Malaise
> Sent: Thursday, May 14, 2009 5:08 PM
> To: Soohong Daniel Park
> Cc: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Ontology for Media Entity 1.0 (ISAN)
>
>
> On May 14, 2009, at 9:56 AM, Soohong Daniel Park wrote:
>
>
> In-scope format, isn’t it ISAN in-scope ?
> I don't see this format in the mapping table; we keep all the  
> formats from the mapping table as "in scope", if others should be  
> taken into account in a later stage, we should list them and mention  
> it in the document, but in another section.
>
>
> Best,
> Véronique
>
>
>
> -----
> Soohong Daniel Park
> Standard Architect, blog.naver.com/natpt
> DMC Business, Samsung Electronics. KOREA
>
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org 
> ] On Behalf Of 이원석
> Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2009 7:20 PM
> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Subject: Ontology for Media Entity 1.0
>
> Dear all,
>
> [1] is the current version for Ontology doc.
> Missing piece is the updated version of mapping table.
>
> If you have any comments, please let me know.
>
> [1] http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-1.0/mediaont-1.0.html
>
> Best regards,
> Wonsuk.
>
Received on Thursday, 14 May 2009 09:17:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 14 May 2009 09:17:44 GMT