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

RE: Terminology proposal

From: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 12:12:55 +0900
Message-ID: <B4EAD1122C31304099A5CDEA5447210F01908DDA@email2>
To: Joakim Söderberg <joakim.soderberg@ericsson.com>
Cc: "Pierre-Antoine Champin" <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "Media Annotation" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Hi Joakim and all,

I guess there are no objection for terminology proposal from Pierre-Antoine.
I would like to ask you could I apply this proposal to ontology doc before the next WG call.
What do you thing ?

Best regards,
Wonsuk

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:public-media-
> annotation-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Pierre-Antoine Champin
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 10:24 PM
> To: Media Annotation
> Subject: Terminology proposal
> 
> 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 Friday, 29 May 2009 03:13:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 29 May 2009 03:13:33 GMT