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

Terminology proposal

From: Pierre-Antoine Champin <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>
Date: Tue, 26 May 2009 14:24:01 +0100
Message-ID: <4A1BED71.4080204@liris.cnrs.fr>
To: Media Annotation <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Following Sylvia's answer to the question about our terminology, I
propose that :

we replace the 3 definitions of media entity, resource and
representation by a single definition of 'media resource', that would
look like:

  Media Resource: any Resource (as defined by [URI]) related to a
  media content. Note that [URI] points out that a resource may be
  retrievable or not. Hence, this term encompasses the abstract notion
  of a movie (e.g. Notting Hill) as well as the binary encoding of this
  movie (e.g. the MPEG-4 encoding of Notting Hill on my DVD), or any
  intermediate levels of abstraction (e.g. the director's cut or the
  plane version of Notting Hill). Although some ontologies (FRBR, BBC)
  define concepts for different such levels of abstraction, our ontology
  does not commit to any classification of media resources.

I think the benefits are the following:

1) we drop the controversial term 'entity'
2) we are compatible with MFWG (who refer to [URI] as well)
3) we acknowledge the fact that there are several levels of abstraction,
but at the same time...
4) we are consistent with our decision not to formalize them (w.r.t.
that, 'resource' vs. 'representation' was such a formalization, though
minimal)

I recall below the definition of 'resource' from [URI]. Note that they
use (without defining it, though), the term 'entity', which is somewhat
more "concrete" than 'resource'. I believe that this definition provides
the generality that we are seeking with 'entity', and I guess the more
restrictive meaning that we gave to 'resource' in the current definition
is what makes Sylvia think it is incompatible with the definition below.

  pa


from [URI] http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2396.html :

      Resource
         A resource can be anything that has identity.  Familiar
         examples include an electronic document, an image, a service
         (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a
         collection of other resources.  Not all resources are network
         "retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound
         books in a library can also be considered resources.

         The resource is the conceptual mapping to an entity or set of
         entities, not necessarily the entity which corresponds to that
         mapping at any particular instance in time.  Thus, a resource
         can remain constant even when its content---the entities to
         which it currently corresponds---changes over time, provided
         that the conceptual mapping is not changed in the process





Received on Tuesday, 26 May 2009 13:24:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 26 May 2009 13:24:52 GMT