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

RE: Regrets for tomorrow`s Telecon (19.05.09)

From: Bailer, Werner <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 11:10:17 +0200
To: "Chris.Poppe@UGent.be" <Chris.Poppe@UGent.be>, "'Veronique Malaise'" <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, "'Florian Stegmaier'" <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
CC: "public-media-annotation@w3.org" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-ID: <CD9846F872C7874BB4E0FDF2A61EF09F155C3E94C2@RZJC1EX.jr1.local>
Dear Chris, all,

> [Definition: Mapping]
> Mapping is the description of relations between (a) sets of 
> information from
> existing formats for media entities on the web, and (b) 
> properties. Mappings
> are defined in sec. 4.2 Property mapping table.
> 
> Since the definition of properties is exactly part (a) that 
> is used in the
> definition above, I would suggest the definition of a Mapping 
> to be the
> description of relations between properties (of different formats).

+1

> Finally, would it be an alternative to state that the Media 
> Entity is the
> abstract concept (representing an object or set of fragments) and the
> Resource be the actual instance of that entity? (In fact this is the
> definition of a Resource within MPEG-21)

I agree that this argument makes sense. However, as pointed out, the fragments group uses the term "resource", and if we e.g. use a URN with a fragment identifier (e.g. to reference a named fragment in a movie without referring to a specific version) it is not a resource in the sense of this definition.

Best regards,
Werner


> 
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] Namens 
> Veronique Malaise
> Verzonden: dinsdag 19 mei 2009 10:04
> Aan: Florian Stegmaier
> CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
> Onderwerp: Re: Regrets for tomorrow`s Telecon (19.05.09)
> 
> Dear all,
> 
> You will find in attachment the html file of the Media Ontology  
> document, please consider only the section "2.1 Terminology", that  
> Florian and I have revised. We would be interested in your feedback  
> about this section! I hope that we made the different notions a bit  
> clearer :)
> The rest of the document is currently under revision by Wonsuk, to  
> whom we will send the section "2.1 Terminology" if the group agrees  
> with this version.
> 
> Best regards,
> Véronique
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 19 May 2009 09:11:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 May 2009 09:11:16 GMT