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

RE: Regrets for tomorrow`s Telecon (19.05.09)

From: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 13:48:37 +0200
Message-ID: <4055256AED9D224D9442B19BF1C4C49003B43739@esealmw118.eemea.ericsson.se>
To: "Bailer, Werner" <werner.bailer@joanneum.at>, <Chris.Poppe@UGent.be>, "Veronique Malaise" <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>, "Florian Stegmaier" <stegmai@dimis.fim.uni-passau.de>
Cc: <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
> 
> > 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.

During a joint session with Media Frag Group (in Barcelona) we introduced "media entity" because we wanted to have a word that could mean either a "resource" or a "representation".

During a telcon after the 3rd F2F, it was argued whether "media entity" was inappropriate. As far as I can recall we decided to keep the expression but try to come up with something better!?

/Joakim

> 
> 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 11:49:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 May 2009 11:49:15 GMT