W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-media-annotation@w3.org > April 2010

Re: [call for comments] ma:compression vs. ma:coding vs. ma:encoding

From: Silvia Pfeiffer <silviapfeiffer1@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 18:40:08 +1000
Message-ID: <o2s2c0e02831004280140x57b1a0aflf182862bb1cc45e2@mail.gmail.com>
To: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
Cc: "Evain, Jean-Pierre" <evain@ebu.ch>, public-media-annotation@w3.org
Is it for specifying a codec or more than that?
If a codec, then why not use the codec parameters of the mime types in
ma:mimetype?
If more - how are you going to specify them? Is there standard vocabulary?

Cheers,
Silvia.

On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> Given the comment below:
> "ma:compression" Have you considered calling it ma:coding instead? One may
> wish to use a coding of a resource for purposes other than compression (e.g.
> fast random access, low memory footprint, minimal CPU usage, etc.) and in
> some cases the coding might cause the representation to be bigger than the
> source.
>
> We'd see your opinions which might be good selection for our property.
> Please reply to me quickly. (Due is strictely today)
>
> [1] ma:compression
> [2] ma:coding
> [3] ma:encoding
>
>
>
> Daniel
>
> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 12:28 AM, Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch> wrote:
>
>>  Hi Daniel,
>>
>>
>>
>> In EBU, we use 'compression' or 'encoding' .(not coding)
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards, JP
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* Daniel Park [mailto:soohongp@gmail.com]
>> *Sent:* lundi, 26. avril 2010 17:07
>> *To:* Evain, Jean-Pierre
>> *Subject:* Re: Ontology definition
>>
>>
>>
>> JP,
>>
>>
>>
>> I'd ask your opinion on the comment below:
>>
>>
>>
>> "ma:compression" Have you considered calling it ma:coding instead? One may
>> wish to use a coding of a resource for purposes other than compression (e.g.
>> fast random access, low memory footprint, minimal CPU usage, etc.) and in
>> some cases the coding might cause the representation to be bigger than the
>> source.
>>
>> What do you think ? Please feedback quickly...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thanks in advance,
>>
>>
>>
>> Daniel
>>
>> 2010/4/26 Evain, Jean-Pierre <evain@ebu.ch>
>>
>> ;-), JP
>>
>>
>>
>> *From:* public-media-annotation-request@w3.org [mailto:
>> public-media-annotation-request@w3.org] *On Behalf Of *Daniel Park
>> *Sent:* lundi, 26. avril 2010 15:46
>>
>>
>> *To:* public-media-annotation@w3.org
>>
>> *Subject:* Fwd: Ontology definition
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> *The Forwarding Message will be attached.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: "Strassner John Charles" <johns@postech.ac.kr>
>> To: public-media-annotation@w3.org, johns@postech.ac.kr
>> Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 21:47:18 +0900 (KST)
>> Subject: Ontology definition
>> Hi team,
>>
>> here is the definition of an ontology that I use when I teach. It is my
>> definition, so you are free to blame me. :-) This is from the following
>> reference:
>>
>> J. Strassner, *Knowledge Engineering Using Ontologies*, Handbook of
>> Network and System Administration, edited by J. Bergstra and M. Burgess,
>> Chapter 3, Section 4, pages 425-457, ISBN 9780444521989
>>
>> *An ontology is a formal, explicit specification of a shared,
>> machine-readable vocabulary and meanings, in the form of various entities
>> and relationships between them, to describe knowledge about the contents of
>> one or more related subject domains throughout the life cycle of its
>> existence. These entities and relationships are used to represent knowledge
>> in the set of related subject domains. Formal refers to the fact that the
>> ontology should be representable in a formal grammar. Explicit means that
>> the entities and relationships used, and the constraints on their use, are
>> precisely and unambiguously defined in a declarative language suitable for
>> knowledge representation. Shared means that all users of an ontology will
>> represent a concept using the same or equivalent set of entities and
>> relationships. Subject domain refers to the content of the universe of
>> discourse being represented by the ontology.*
>>
>> Ontologies can be combined or related to each other using ontological
>> commitments as follows:
>>
>> *An ontology commitment represents a selection of the best mapping
>> between the terms in an ontology and their meanings. Hence, ontologies can
>> be combined and/or related to each other by defining a set of mappings that
>> define precisely and unambiguously how one node in one ontology is related
>> to another node in another ontology.*
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> regards,
>> John
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Soohong Daniel Park
>> Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
>> http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00/home | Twitter@natpt
>>   ------------------------------
>>
>> *************************************************** This email and any
>> files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use
>> of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received
>> this email in error, please notify the system manager. This footnote also
>> confirms that this email message has been swept by the mailgateway
>> ************************************************** *
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Soohong Daniel Park
>> Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
>> http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00/home | Twitter@natpt
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Soohong Daniel Park
> Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
> http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00/home | Twitter@natpt
>
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 08:41:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 April 2010 08:41:04 GMT