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

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

From: Daniel Park <soohongp@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2010 22:13:32 +0900
Message-ID: <o2if7c7d76e1004280613nad5eb7f7mc494d14718bd368f@mail.gmail.com>
To: public-media-annotation@w3.org
Folks,

This loop is very valuable discussion, but now we might select one
definition to be ready for LC. Of course this technical debate can be kept
in parallel...

So, once again, what's your opinion. Please selece one

 [1] ma:compression
[2] ma:coding
[3] ma:encoding


Daniel


On Wed, Apr 28, 2010 at 4:49 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
>



-- 
Soohong Daniel Park
Samsung Electronics, DMC R&D
http://sites.google.com/site/natpt00/home | Twitter@natpt
Received on Wednesday, 28 April 2010 13:14:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 28 April 2010 13:14:05 GMT