Hi all, I think there is a misunderstanding which we had before. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Jun/thread#msg75 and my explanations at http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-media-annotation/2009Jun/0096.html Note also that the API we are working on, see http://dev.w3.org/2008/video/mediaann/mediaont-api-1.0/mediaont-api-1.0.html is even more specific than dublin core, e.g. in terms of return types. Felix 2009/10/9 Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org> > Hi Ron, > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 7:55 AM, Ron Daniel > <rdaniel@taxonomystrategies.com> wrote: > > Earlier today I came across the Media Ontology for the first time. My > > initial reaction was one of dismay to see the copying of the Dublin Core > > elements into a different namespace. > > > > I understand that the group sees the ma: properties – not as replacements > > for the DC and other properties, but as identifiers for mappings between > > equivalent properties in various formats. > > I might just add, this is a good summary of how many in the Dublin > Core have seen and described their work: as a common core shared by > otherwise diverse and fragmented information systems. For those new to > DC, this might not be so obvious. > eg. see http://www.dlib.org/dlib/december00/weibel/12weibel.html > > I'd also prefer to see DC terms used as the shared 'hub' here, where > there's a natural fit. There are plenty of places where a > media-specific ontology might be useful, but for the DC-like stuff, > reference rather than copy makes sense... > > cheers, > > Dan > >
Received on Friday, 9 October 2009 11:02:56 UTC