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

Re: Terminology proposal

From: Veronique Malaise <vmalaise@few.vu.nl>
Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 09:22:10 +0200
Cc: "Pierre-Antoine Champin" <pierre-antoine.champin@liris.cnrs.fr>, "Media Annotation" <public-media-annotation@w3.org>
Message-Id: <51828091-8A44-4F6D-A71A-7A222B48B4DB@few.vu.nl>
To: 이원석 <wslee@etri.re.kr>
I find your definition very elegant and totally accurate, 100% OK to  
change the text with this!

Best,
Véronique

On May 29, 2009, at 4:55 AM, 이원석 wrote:

> Hi. Pierre-Antoine.
>
> I agreed with your definition.
> And I feel media resource is more intuitive
>
> 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 07:23:48 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 29 May 2009 07:23:49 GMT