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

Re: Regrets for tomorrow`s Telecon (19.05.09)

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 17:07:14 +0100
Message-ID: <4A12D932.7050102@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: Victor Rodriguez Doncel <victorr@ac.upc.edu>
CC: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Victor Rodriguez Doncel a écrit :
> Hello,
> FRBR proposes "Endeavour" as the term to name either a "Work" or
> "Expression" or "Manifestation" or "Item".
> However, I find much clearer the "Media Entity" term. Which was the
> objection exactly about it?

The main objection, I think, was that "entity" has a precise meaning
according to HTTP [1]. Since HTTP is one the foundations of the Web, I
am uncomfortable to override one of its terms.

Since FRBR people seem to have given the topic some thought, and came up
with an unambiguous term for this notion (which happens to be quite
pretty, I think, if not very common ;), I vote to adopt it.


[1] http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec1.html#sec1.3
> Víctor
> Joakim Söderberg escribió:
>>>> 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 16:20:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:17:34 UTC